Jeantel: “I Told Trayvon, [Zimmerman] Might Have Been A Rapist.”

Screen-Shot-2013-07-15-at-6.09.50-PM-300x198One of the most damaging moments for the prosecution in the trial of George Zimmerman trial was the inexplicable decision to lead with Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Trayvon Martin’s. Jeantel proceeded to admit to previously lying and then gave conflicted and at points unintelligible testimony. Her statement that Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker” further helped the defense in balancing the derogatory statements of Zimmerman. After the verdict, Jeantel has made statements that seem unhinged and again raise the question on why the prosecutors would place her so prominently in their case in chief. The latest controversy is a new allegation from Jeantel that she warned Trayvon that Zimmerman might be a gay rapist. She is not the only person associated with the trial who seems to be courting the press in the case with disastrous results.


In an interview with Piers Morgan, she said “People need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracka going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother is there. Mind you I told you, I told Trayvon, [Zimmerman] might have been a rapist.”

In a truly bizarre interview, Morgan asks Jeantel to school him on the correct spelling and meaning of such terms as “cracka” and “nigga.”

Jeantel called the verdict “BS” and said “Well, the jury, they see their facts. My thoughts of the jury, they old, that’s old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation. So –”

Morgan then appears to turn into a cultural anthropologist and asked clinically:

“Let’s talk about ‘creepy ass cracka.’ People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?

JEANTEL: No! Like I said —

MORGAN: How do you spell it, first of all?

JEANTEL: Cracka.

MORGAN: There’s no ‘e-r,’ right?

JEANTEL: No, it’s an ‘a’ at the end.

MORGAN: C-r-a-c-k-a.

JEANTEL: Yeah. And that’s a person who act like they’re a police [officer], who, like a security guard who acting like — that’s what I said to them. Trayvon said creepy ass cracka.

MORGAN: It means he thought it was a police or a security guard?

JEANTEL: Yeah, he acting like the police. And then he keep telling me that the man is still watching him. So, if it was a security guard or a policeman, they would come up to Trayvon and say, ‘Do you have a problem? Do you need help?’ You know, like normal people.

Once again, it is unclear why Jeantel did not emphasize the concern over a male rape on the stand. One could almost feel the prosecutor cringing at the interview with so many questioning their judgment in relying so heavily on Jeantel.

While on the subject of people behaving badly from the case (a rather long list), there is juror B-37 who announced in an interview that she was going to write a book and had enlisted an agent. She even named her agent as Sharlene Martin. After an outcry over the effort to profit from the case (not to mention a pretty limited foundation for a book). Martin tweeted that juror B37 had regained her sanity and dropped the plans for a book (that was going to be co-written by her attorney husband). She explained that the isolation of being sequestered “shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case.”

Really? It took this long to figure out that there was pain over the verdict. What tipped you off after you arranged for an interview, went to the interview, and announced your book? Was it the mass protests in various cities or continuing coverage on television. Ironically, she actually proved the accuracy of West’s disastrous joke in his opening statement: “Knock, knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Congratulations, you’re on the jury.” The joke was bizarre first because you should never cut jokes in a murder trial opening statement with a dead teenage boy. Second, if the jury got the joke, they would realize they were the punch line. The point is that only morons or cave-dwelling recluses would not know anything about the case. Well then walked in juror B-37.

Source: Real Clear Politics

259 thoughts on “Jeantel: “I Told Trayvon, [Zimmerman] Might Have Been A Rapist.”

  1. Yeah, Cracka, one who acts like some type of LEO. Right. Sure. Great job there, Prosecution. But hey, it’s Floriduh.

  2. Stupid is as stupid does..and in this case as stupid says! It is amazing why she was ever on the stand on anyone’s behalf. Reminds me of a certain glove incident in court.

  3. Darren Smith:

    “So is it a rapist or a security guard? I’m confused.”

    Those aren’t mutually exclusive, are they? It could be a security guard rapist. Or would that be a rapist security guard? I guess the first one would be ambiguous.

  4. Hi Jonathan, Appreciate your unbiased reporting and moral fortitude in doing so. For an expanded picture, I refer you to Frances Robles, Miami Herald Article 3/26/12, M-DSPD regarding T. Martin’s backpack with stolen jewelry and burglary tools. Also of note is CNN report on Florida’s State Attorneys Office where IT Director was fired for due diligence in noticing relevant data missing including; TM’s smoking and blowing smoke rings towards camera, as well as deleted txt messages which recorded a transaction for the purchase of firearms. I prefer you keep my communication private, just info to reinforce that you are on the right track. A ploy to keep humanity distracted and divided as the noose tightens.. Lydia

  5. One of the saddest points in Ms. Jeantel’s testimony/interviews is the realization that this woman is permanently condemned to the underclass (as are so many other young black people). Ms. Jeantel will find it hard to do better than a near minimum wage job.

    Listen to her accent, grammar, and spelling – the education system has failed her (remember the comment about not reading “cursive”?). Where were the “educators” when she went to school?

    Nationally, we spend more and more on education – I know that here in my area, there isn’t a year that the school district doesn’t get more tax money (which seems to go for shiny new facilities and more administrators).

    What Ms. Jeantel demonstrates is not a racial issue, it is a systemic/societal issue – our school systems are broken and many parents lack the education, money, or awareness to further their children.

  6. White privilege just oozes, in JT and B37. A serious lack tolerance for a culture that’s a bit different.

    Rachel Jeantel is the one with class, as in well mannered. Good for her for not spelling out what she thinks of nasty Don West. He tried to break a teen in 14 hours and he failed. She didn’t break. Too bad her audience didn’t really listen to her.

    Cursive is no longer taught in schools. My white nieces and nephews can’t read it or write it b/c it isn’t taught in their predominantly white school.

    Sorry some of you think I’m ignorant. I’ll just consider the source and realize that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    B37s bias or amazing stupidity.

    JUROR: I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly, that he went above and beyond what he really should have done. But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong.

    later she says: “There were unbelievable, a number of robberies in the neighborhood. ”

    [there was no vandalism, there were no open cases, according to the the response to Malisha’s foia, there were few incidents in preceding months.]
    —————
    COOPER: Do you think he’s guilty of something?

    JUROR: I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car. But the 911 operator also, when he was talking to him, kind of egged him on. I don’t know if it’s their policy to tell them what to do, not to get out of the car, to stay in their car. But I think he should have said, stay in your car, not can you see where he’s gone.

    [Sean didn’t an opportunity to tell gz to stay in his car; “shit, he’s running”, door opens and gz is running, on the hunt. “egged him on”? ]
    ——————–

    COOPER: Is George Zimmerman somebody you would like to have on a neighborhood watch in your community?

    JUROR: If he didn’t go too far. I mean, you can always go too far. HE JUST DIDN’T STOP AT THE LIMITATIONS THAT HE SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AT.

    COOPER: So is that a yes or — if he didn’t go too far. Is he somebody prone, you think, to going too far? Is he somebody you would feel comfortable —

    JUROR: I think he was frustrated. I think he was frustrated with the whole situation in the neighborhood, with the break-ins and the robberies. And they actually arrested somebody not that long ago. I — I mean, I would feel comfortable having George, but I THINK HE’S LEARNED A GOOD LESSON.

    Right. Lie your a$$ off, get a jury with some bigots, and you can get away with murder, unless you’re Black.

  7. “After rioting in several cities” Mr. Turley? Is this Fox news? There were a few incidents that might fit some technical definition of rioting, but to randomly insert that in there just perpetuates the right wing want of evidence of blacks behaving badly so as to feed their own biases.

  8. Mr. Turley, How’s your usual optimism that we can have an open dialogue on race? In many cases, those who call for it, want to define “open.” And it’s not very wide, is it.

  9. “Was it the rioting in various cities ”

    What rioting? What cities? This is disinformation. There were many vigils and protests but no rioting. Please cite your source.

  10. Since I”m no longer getting email notification in spite of not unsubscribing, I’m deleting this link and won’t be back. The white privilege bias of JT is just too much for me to take. It’s a great disappointment b/c I know there are many posters who don’t share that bias. Hope I meet some of those posters somewhere else. I’m joining Malisha.

  11. thanks, sm.

    honest, my last word.

    “Dear George Zimmerman,

    For the rest of your life you are now going to feel what its like to be a black man in America.

    You will feel people stare at you. Judging you for what you think are unfair reasons. You will lose out on getting jobs for something you feel is outside of your control. You will believe yourself to be an upstanding citizen and wonder why people choose to not see that.

    People will cross the street when they see you coming. They will call you hurtful names. It will drive you so insane some days that you’ll want to scream at the top of your lungs. But you will have to wake up the next day, put on firm look and push through life.

    I bet you never thought that by shooting a black male you’d end up inheriting all of his struggles.

    Enjoy your ‘freedom.’

    Sincerely,

    A black male who could’ve been Trayvon Martin”
    – See more at: http://madamenoire.com/286260/bet-you-never-thought-that-by-shooting-a-black-man-youd-inherit-all-of-his-struggles-lance-gross-pens-gripping-letter-to-george-zimmerman/#sthash.lr8z6UqH.dpuf

  12. The incidents I read about and saw reported were in LA and Oakland. Vandalism in Oakland, including breaking windows on a police cruiser. Crowds failing to disperse in LA w/ cops using bean bag projectiles to disperse the crowd. There may have been more?

  13. bettykath,
    you are right that there were no riots after the decision was announced. Demonstrations and vigils are not riots. secondly, please reconsider your decision to leave the blog. Your voice like everyone else’s is valued by all who spend time here. I understand your concern, but by staying here and expressing your opinion, we may be able to make a difference on many issues.

  14. Blouise, Maybe you could find something about rioting at Prisonplanet, WND or the Ron Paul forum.

  15. Wait … wait … I did find one:

    Juror B-37’s voir dire:

    She characterized the protests wanting Zimmerman’s arrest as “riots”.

  16. Excerpt from the article:

    “But the demonstrations in Oakland and Los Angeles morphed into more aggressive outbursts, with marauders running through city streets — smashing windows, lighting garbage fires, assaulting news crews and, in one case, attacking a waiter trying to protect a restaurant damaged two nights prior.

    At least nine people, including a juvenile, were arrested in Oakland on Monday night for alleged offenses including assault with a deadly weapon, resisting arrest and vandalism, police said. Los Angeles police reported 14 arrests from Monday, including six juveniles. Most of the L.A. arrests were for what police said was failure to disperse, though one was for allegedly inciting a riot.”

    Also:

    “What began as a peaceful protest in South L.A.’s Leimert Park escalated Monday after officials said a group of about 150 people splintered off and headed down Crenshaw Boulevard and neighboring streets, smashing windows, lighting fireworks and surrounding cars.

    Cuauhtemoc Negrete, 22, who was at the rally in Leimert Park, said he later was robbed and threatened by one of the rogue groups. He said he also saw people assaulted as they waited for a bus at Vernon Avenue and Crenshaw Boulevard.

    He broke down in tears Monday as he expressed frustration over the protests. “Why does it always have to go down this road?” he said.

    Other witnesses recalled chaos after vandals made their way inside a Wal-Mart in Crenshaw Plaza, storming the store before security guards were able to close the gates. A short time later, Los Angeles Police Department officers wearing helmets and carrying batons arrived.

    Lali Castillo, 21, of Glendale said she saw people come inside the store and begin throwing merchandise — mostly clothing — onto the ground. Some tried to break open the glass jewelry displays on the first floor, she said.”

  17. SwM,

    Haven’t visited any of those sites but I know many Stand Your White Ground folk who were disappointed that the predicted rioting didn’t take place.

  18. Blouise, Yep……. Marv and the prison planet guy. I thought this post pushed the envelope and agree with bettykath.

  19. Formula taught in Prosecution 101 at the nation’s best law schools.

    BF + GW + n(PM) = A

    Where:
    BF are bad facts.
    GW is a goofy witness.
    PM are major prosecutorial mistakes.
    n is any number large enough to be noticeable to the general public.
    A is acquittal.

    The odd thing about this formula (and the thing that the Zimmerman prosecutors apparently did not understand) is that one can add S (succumbing to political pressure) to the formula and the result will be the same.

  20. Blouise, whatever you were doing wasn’t due diligence. It’s beyond obvious that your (and many others’) gross obsession with the Zimmermann case/verdict has exhausted your objectivity…. :)

    What constitutes rioting in your eyes?

  21. Juris, Good research. The LA Times is not a Ron Paul website as some have snickered. When an LA Times piece doesn’t come up in “due diligence,” we may need to redefine “diligent!”

  22. SwM,

    Yeah, well we aren’t going anywhere. Part of the “invisibility” factor in white privilege is that one literally can’t see it and has no idea what we’re talking about.

    The big difference between the two ladies referenced in the post is that one was actually talking to Martin as Zimmerman was killing him and the other only knew Martin as “a boy of color”.

  23. Thanks, nick. I am amazed at how this case has clouded the rationality of so many, on both sides.

    Blouise: “Part of the “invisibility” factor in white privilege is that one literally can’t see it and has no idea what we’re talking about.”

    Oh, the irony.

  24. Juris, You’re correct on so many levels. The people who always jump on prosecutorial misconduct avoided that topic in this case like the plaque. The way Mr. Turley has called this case has been spot on, but there is a kill the messenger tenor from people who are normally quite reasonable. Calling him a racist is beyond the pale and disgraceful. Is this the open dialogue???

  25. Yes, nick. And commenters here vowing to never visit again because of a difference of opinion? Sad. Some need to take a deep breath and a step (or 2 or 3… or 10) back.

    Hopefully, normalcy will return soon.

  26. I am totally fascinated by the way the “Trayvon’s a Thug” brigade deal with anything coming from Jeantel.

    Their BIG messages is that she is a liar and a tool of Crump and the Scheme Team.
    She might not even be the person who wa talking to Martin on the night. “DeeDee might even be two people – a young one and an older one, with the eventual one being the one that Crump managed to coach best.
    In any case she committed perjury fergawdsakes. In her sworn statement to BDLR she said that she answered “Yeah” to BDLR’s “Did you got to the hospital or somewhere?” – which question was absolutely crucial to the whole case.
    If by comparison she had sworn in one statement to seeing a rain of MMA-style punching and head-pounding, and then in the next statment sworn she didn’t actually see that – then that#s just being a bit confused about something entirely periperal to the case.
    No. She crossed a line with that going ‘or somewhere’ jazz.

    Evereything she says is a lie….
    Except…… for….. anything that can be interpreted as damaging to Martin.

    She said that Martin reported being “right by” his father’s house.
    She spoke gospel truth there. All the rest was perjury, but she spoke the truth there.
    Not alone dd she speak the truth, but we know precisely what she means by “right by”. We havn’t a clue what she is saying 99% of the time but she absolutely means “On the back porch”. This proves that Martin went there so stash the blunts and stuff he stole from houses on the way back from the 7-11. He than doubled back to attack Zimmerman – whoe by the way would have been completely invisible to him as he ad onlt been visible for 20 seconds or 30 max as he crossed past the T-junction on his way to RVC, where he stood in the rain and cold for 3 minutes before turning back for his truck and being spotted and attacked by Martin “less than 30 seconds” later. He stashed all illicit stuff but return to attack Zimmerman while carrying heavy akward drinks can as he thought he might need a drink after killing Zimmerman.

    But I digress…….
    .

    Jeantel is speaking the truth again… because it sounds like something bad for Martin.
    .

    Actually it’s bad for Zimmerman.
    .
    DId she say ….
    1) You better run cuz he might be a plainclothes cop who’s gonna bust you for burgulary/drugs
    2) You better run cuz he might be some sort of security seeing you casing the houses
    3) You up to no good or something so this guy is out to stop you from doing no good

    She didn’t because the best interpretation that Martin had of Zimmerman’s bizzarre actions was that he was a pervert on the prowl.
    That’s what Zimmerman looked like to Martin.

    So Martin should have run home right?
    Jeantel: “People need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracka going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother is there.”
    Right…. well that sounds like a reason for Martin not to be heading straight home…. so therfore it logically follows that Jeantel is lying about that bit.
    She is not, however, lying about the phrases “creepy ass-cracka” or “right by” ( the meaning of which is unambiguous).
    .

    So eventually the two come together.
    Faced with the two-minute gap after the NEN, MOM offered a theory that Zimmerman might have been “looking around” during that time.
    This is only a theory of course because Zimmerman has no testimony on record explaining what he was doing in those minutes. To quote MOM talking about Martin’s minutes. “Nobody knows”. All we know is that Zimmerman has always denied that he delayed at all.

    But it has to be accepted that there was a gap of minutes during which nobody knows what Zimmerman was doing. MOM suggests that he might have been “looking around”. I suppose he must have been.

    At the end of Zimmerman’s unknown minutes, during which according to MOM, he might have been “looking around”, he is face to face with Martin.
    Martin’s perception of this weirdo who has been following him is that he is a pervert on the prowl.
    He asks “Why you following me?” or alternatively “You got a problem?”.
    The pervert doesn’t answer the question.
    He responds with “What are you doing around here” (pretty boy)? or alternatively “No. I don’t have a problem” (I’m being all cute and flirting with you pretty boy).

    The pervert later tells the cops that the next thing he does is to reach for his waistband.
    Martin sees the pervert reaching for his waistband and comes to the same conclusion that Hannity would come to under the same circumstances. The pervert is pulling a gun.

    Apparently the next thing that happens is that Martin punches this pervert who is pulling a gun.
    .

    Had the pervert explained back at the truck that he was NW this would not have happened.
    Had the pervert answered the question sensibly and explained what he was at, this probably would not have happened.

  27. nick, Blouise is an independent thinker, and that is why I respect her so much. Bette kath is a fully committed progressive who sincerely displays an attitude of cultural sensitivity..If she thinks she sees something, I would not care to dispute it. And as to the Ron Paul forum, there have been rantings about race riots for years….

  28. It seems some people have have been more critical of Jeantal than they have of Zimmerman who was on trial for killing a Black teenager.

    *****

    A Teenager Named Rachel Jeantel
    11 July 2013
    By Ife Johari, SpeakOut | Op-Ed
    http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17512-a-teenager-named-rachel-jeantel

    Excerpt:
    By now the world knows the name of the young woman who was the last person to speak to Trayvon Martin: Rachel Jeantel. Rachel has been thrown head on into the public eye in a way that NONE of us would ever want for ourselves. Imagine what it must be like: a high school student talking on the phone to one of your friends like you would normally do…then all of a sudden your friend is dead and your world is turned into a legal whirlwind! Watching her tell the story of the last time she spoke to her friend Trayvon was painful. Watching defense attorney Don West questioning her, often times it was easy to forget that Zimmerman is the one who is on trial and not Ms. Jeantel. Rachel was judged very harshly by the public as people generally have a way of being overly critical, judgmental and just plain mean. Judging Rachel as if she should have been born ready to testify in court and to play any part in this legal system who is in no way on her side. What I saw was a young woman who knew the defense team was against her and out to discredit her, she knew that Don West had a particular impatience and dislike for her. Many people highlighted her behavior and her dislike and impatience for Don West but that feeling was definitely not one sided. She knew it, she felt it and she wasn’t afraid to show it to the world with her famous response—”that’s real retarded, sir”. She was standing up for herself and I was proud of her for doing so.

    The media is not focused on reporting the strength and pain of who this young woman on the stand was… No… The media feeds the masses every negative criticism of her that has been said. From her level of education, the way she speaks, to even the way she wears her hair… all up for criticism. Highlighting the fact that she is a 19-year-old just entering into the 12th grade in high school. Highlighting that she can’t read or write in cursive. Never once questioning an education system that would allow a teenager to reach the 12th grade without knowing how to read or write in cursive. How did that happen? It seems that “no child left behind” has turned into “push them through the system and get them out of our hair”. One thing is for sure, reading or writing in cursive has nothing to do with the real life lessons she is learning through all of the happenings in her life now. I can only imagine.

    None of us know what life was like for Rachel Jeantel before the world knew her name, before her friend was murdered, before she took the stand. None of us know what she has struggled with in her life, what her dreams may be, what and who she loves in life. Have her dreams in life changed since all of this has happened? These are the questions I would like to ask her.

  29. I’m confused here…. Why is this witness still being courted by the news shows….. I would have guessed that the jury could have come down with a weak MS….. But when your own witness, major witness tanks your case…. How do you save it….. I’m beginning to see that this witness is possibly racist…. Was Martin racist too? It’s been suggest hat GZ was…. But only after MSNBC altered the tapes….. Now, I’m more confused with the stats case to start with….. And the chief prosecutor to fire an investigator for divulging that there was more that had not been disclosed…. I hope no one lose has to ever go through a case where the prosecutor has intentionally withheld information….. What was the lead case… Brady…… The more I read about this case, the more I’m upset with he state…..

  30. Blouise, Are you speaking of my comments about Mr. Turley? I am not worshipping him, I worship no one on earth. I’m merely stating my support.

    Unlike I surmise most everyone here, I have had discussions on this trial w/ black men, 3 so far. They’re friends and we often disagree strongly on topics from sports to politics to race. The 3 guys I’ve spoken w/ have some different attitudes about this case, but more agreement. One of them is an attorney. The attorney has the same take on the CASE..not all the baggage, but the CASE, as does Mr. Turley. To varying degrees, they say that a white person like myself cannot truly know what it’s like to be a black man in a situation like this. I agree totally. We’ve had this discussion previously. The other 2 guys think the state proved manslaughter. We all agree the state overreached charging 2nd degree. We all agree that this was also, to a certain extent, about testosterone and two guys w/ chips on their shoulders. Unfortunately, one of them was armed. And we all agree Zimmerman was a cop wannabe. None of these men are willing to call Zimmerman a racist. One said “he probably is” but would need more info. They use that word sparingly, more sparingly than many white folk. However, all 3 say Martin’s race and HIS AGE were factors in Zimmerman following him. They have pointed out to me in the past that life gets easier for a black man as he gets older. And that it is incumbent upon black father’s to teach their sons that important lesson. Unfortunately, when black men are most @ risk is when they are the point in their lives when they are the biggest risk takers. C’est la vie. This conversation was not heated, testy a bit, but not heated. We know each other and trust each other. I would have thought Mr. Turley had built some trust here. For some, apparently not.

  31. I haz amuze dat mi comment follozz directly ater de wurdz “Hopefully, normalcy will return soon.”

  32. SWM, What about the LA Times article, that’s the issue. You were scoffing and Blouise was denying. But, that’s all small potatoes. Read my comments w/ bettykath over the last few days. We’re very cool. I’m not questioning Blouise’s independent thinking or yours. My issue w/ you and Blouise was specific to the LA Times article, about which neither of you have spoken. Again, when people avoid a subject is when I know it’s important. There is not and was not mass rioting. But that article comports w/ what was said in the post.

  33. Nick,

    Part of me was hopeful that a MS case would have been returned…. But, after hearing the states lead witness ….. And the intentional wrongs of the prosecutor….. They returned the only just verdict they could have….

  34. Nick, some people just can’t accept it when they are wrong. We are all wrong about things at one time or another. The biggest hurdle to intellect is realizing when that time is and acknowledging it. Some, I think, are simply not able, like my father. Thank goodness for my wife there is hope for me.

  35. AY, It was close on manslaughter. If the prosecutor wasn’t a politician, and charged Zimmerman w/ manslaughter originally, they make have gotten a conviction. According to CNN the juries first vote was 3 to 3 for a manslaughter conviction. Halfway through their case the prosecution saw they were no where near 2nd degree; they never were. So, they focused on the manslaughter after that. Obviously too late. We’re seeing ZDS[Zimmerman Derangement Syndrome] reaching epidemic status.

  36. Juris, You are correct. My old man taught me it was strength to admit you’re wrong, not weakness. And, that was not so long ago the norm. Of late, our culture seems to more and more see admitting you’re wrong as a weakness. Politicians are the WORST in this regard.

  37. I may disagree with our host from time to time, both publicly and privately, but I will state unequivocally that any notion he is a racist is without merit and egregiously wrong. He has tirelessly promoted equal rights for all and I think the record is so conclusive on that matter that to question it is merely foolish or sour grapes for not getting a confirmation bias affirmed over what has become an emotionally charged case over race when race was never the issue at bar – only in the media.

  38. Rodney King was about racism. This was about whether a man committed manslaughter.

    I find the desire to read race into this case almost as interesting as the case itself.

  39. One of the most damaging moments for the prosecution in the trial of George Zimmerman trial was the inexplicable decision to lead with Rachel Jeantel …”

    Indeed.

    Some jury trial experts I have known and worked with, who were prosecutors in their day, liked to lead off with one of the best, if not the best, witnesses.

    “Best” in the context of the flavor of “that jury”, always reminding me that it would be difficult to sit two juries that were exactly alike in a short span of time (“never assume a jury is like the last one, or will be like the next one”).

    They liked to end the same way, with one of the best witnesses.

    What Miss Jeantel did was remind everyone, including the two juries, of the two distinct cultures in the United States.

    Two cultures that have always lived across a wide gulf from one another.

    That had a lasting imact on the jury.

  40. BettyyKath,
    I echo Rafflaw’s comment. I enjoy your and many others contributions. Many times I have read your comments and thought them well considered and valuable in understanding a topic under discussion. Please reconsider.

    I have casually followed the Zimmerman case. I am not familiar with all of the minutiae that some of the posters on this blog invariably are knowledgeable about. That being said, I still have a couple of observations.
    First, I think the criticism of the prosecutor’s for charging more than manslaughter is legitimate. That being said, I think the numerous criticisms from many fronts about the prosecutor’s mis-steps is a bit unfair.

    The potential for a strongly supported charge of murder 2d degree was in my view largely foreclosed by the woeful failure of the police department to appropriately investigate the case from the beginning. The police, whether out of familiarity with Zimmerman, racism or some other combination of reasons, were more than satisfied with Zimmerman’s contention that he was the victim and was justified in his use of lethal force. At a minimum, the circumstances were ambiguous. Where there is a dead teenager and ambiguity about how the events leading up to the firing of the fatal shot transpired, a more thorough investigation should have been pursued immediately. The fact that Zimmerman was interviewed and then free to go and the subsequent police department comments seemingly characterizing the shooting as justified was not I submit a model of police professionalism. Furthermore, in excerpted snippets of testimony from police department witnesses at trial, it appeared that police witnesses were bending over backward to cast Zimmerman in a favorable light. Cops, and particularly detectives, are professional witnesses. They can easily help or hinder a prosecutor’s case based on how they testify. If the police witnesses are perceived by one or more members of the jury to have sympathy for the defendant and the defense case, it will be a hard row to hoe for the prosecution to secure an as charged conviction.

    One might reasonably wonder, if the neighbors that dialed 911 and reported a fight/shooting and upon police response found an adolescent black male in a hoody with a gun who was contending that he shot the deceased in self defense, whether the police would have been so quick to conclude that the killing was lawful self defense. I suspect that Trayvon would have at minimum, been booked into jail while the investigation was pursued. I guess the one good thing that can be said at the conclusion of this case is that Sanford Florida has a new police chief and hopefully she will institute policy and instill a culture of objective professionalism that will serve the community better in the future.

  41. Bob, Esq. 1, July 16, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Rodney King was about racism. This was about whether a man committed manslaughter.

    I find the desire to read race into this case almost as interesting as the case itself.
    ================================
    Indeed.

    It is as interesting as trying to read race out of it.

    Both are symptomatic of American history.

  42. Sorry nick, I support bettykath in her observations and will miss her and I fully understood the disgust Marisha verbalized.

    As to the 100-150 people in L A constituting a riot … get real … you get no response from me because it’s just too ridiculous … I was at Kent State during the days that led up to the Massacre and before that in Cleveland during the Hough Riots (’66). Honest to God, nick, I’m not trying to be a smarta$$ but that L.A. reference as a riot was just dam funny.

  43. Hi everyone. I just got back and saw all of the controversy over the use of “riot” in the blog. I saw clips of people taking over intersections as well as destruction of property on television. But I removed the term because it is a distraction. I simply was expressing how clueless this juror sounded.

    As for people leaving the blog because of my views of the case, I regret any departures but this site strives for an array of views and opinions. That type of free exchange may not appeal to everyone. As a legal commentator, I try to offer analysis objectively, including analysis on trial strategy and the impact of witnesses. The blog often speaks objectively, even clinically, about litigation. This is a case that is heavily infused by the passions of people on both sides. However, I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are speaking from a good faith perspective of the facts and not some racial or personal bias. We are committed on this blog to refraining from personal attacks and recriminations simply because we disagree on the merits. Again, that may not appeal to everyone. We will be here for anyone who wants to return if they find greater value in our type of forum. If not, thanks for contributing and best of luck in your search for the right blog or blogs.

  44. nick spinelli 1, July 16, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    The incidents I read about and saw reported were in LA and Oakland. Vandalism in Oakland, including breaking windows on a police cruiser. Crowds failing to disperse in LA w/ cops using bean bag projectiles to disperse the crowd. There may have been more?
    ===========================
    The LA incident is a fabrication according to a good journalist who lives there.

    It is a cover-up type distraction for what is coming and what is already here.

  45. juris/nick:

    my father in-law, an old country lawyer type, says Zimmerman took 2 lie-detector tests and passed each one given days apart by 2 different techs. Is that true?

    He also said Eric Holder is now the most dangerous man in America. Hyperbole?

  46. I don’t think anyone can know with certainty that this case wasn’t tainted by race. Only George Zimmerman knows what went on in his head that night…only George Zimmerman knows what’s in his heart.

  47. The most intolerant people around are the progressives. Mr Turley any of these whining progressive clowns leaving your blog are not worth keeping anyways.

  48. Blouise, As I said to SWM, please read my exchanges w/ bettykath over the last couple days. I have told her she’s valuable and hoped she stays. We even had a chuckle which is too her credit since this is so emotional for her. So, we are in agreement on that topic. I know this is an emotional topic for Malisha, but I’ve not seen her lately and I don’t know specifically what “disgust” you’re referencing.

    Regarding LA and Oakland. I did not call them “riots,” the record shows I called them “incidents.” I think Mr. Turley clears this issue up in his comment. He saw the same incidents as myself and millions on tv. Riot, probably not. Peaceful, definitely not.

  49. Bron, I did not follow the pretrial circus. I NEVER do. I’ve worked too many cases and have so little faith in the media that I just stick to the trial and evidence presented. Actually, I don’t even get into many trials. I didn’t watch a minute of the Casey Anthony trial. So I don’t know about the polygraphs.

    My disgust for Holder goes back to his Clinton years. He just gets worse every time I see him in action. I don’t know that he’s the most dangerous man in America. But he is a man in a very powerful position and lacks the moral authority to hold that position IMO.

  50. I thought I heard the witness testify on the stand about suggesting [Zimmerman] might be a rapist. I thought she meant racist and I believe she was asked to confirm she said rapist. I think Rachel Jeantel was an excellent witness. She was no more confrontational with West than he was with her.

    About the knock knock joke, while quite insensitive for a case like this, it did not make the jury a punchline. A punchline, in this situation, would be demeaning; rather, the punchline implied–to me–that the jury was coming into the trial without preconceived ideas about George Zimmerman. It was more of a compliment than a joke.

  51. Mobile, AL – On Saturday night, Matthew Owens told a group of kids to stop playing in the middle of street, only to have them return with a group of adults who dished out a beating that landed him in the Intensive Care Unit, according to police.

    Police say that the group of 20 assailants used chairs, pipes and paint cans to waylay Owens on his own front porch.

    The victim’s sister, Ashley Parker, told News 5: “It was the scariest thing I have ever witnessed.” She said the attackers used “brass buckles, paint cans and anything they could get their hands on.”

    Parker added that as her brother lie on the ground bleeding, one of the assailants looked back and shouted: “Now that’s justice for Trayvon!”

    Owens is still listed in critical condition at the University of South Alabama Medical Center.

  52. Prof. Turley, I don’t mean to nitpick here, but the legal expression is “case in chief,” not “case and chief.” I assume this is a typographical error–and I’ve made more than my fair share of those, as my fellow posters have readily pointed out. But as you are usually very precise in your legal analyses, and others look to you for your high level of precision, you may want to have someone familiar with legal discussions to proof your articles. Others reading your blog may emulate your application of legal terminology, and that will help them to correctly apply such terminology. Thanks.

  53. Juris 1, July 16, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Yes, nick. And commenters here vowing to never visit again because of a difference of opinion? Sad. Some need to take a deep breath and a step (or 2 or 3… or 10) back.

    Hopefully, normalcy will return soon.
    =============================
    We have a beautiful, artful, plaque on our wall that reads “Around Here ‘Normal’ Is A Setting On The Dryer!” (I got it for my lady on her birthday … she put it on the wall, not me.)

    As a nation we do not understand what racism is, so our normal will always be a setting on the dryer.

    Our nation thinks that racism is something that slips out when we can no longer suppress various words and actions.

    It is a political concept, a thin veneer covering our play-pretend reality.

  54. nick, Malisha 1, July 13, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    I’m glad Idealist did not live to see this.
    And there it is and here we are and welcome to post-Trayvon America. None of us (you) who stay here will ever be in a different place, other than post-Trayvon America. This is where a Dog can live in a gated community and shoot anybody he calls a “punk” whom he should find there.
    And Z will get jobs as security, armed with SYG, for corporations, and liberals will moan and groan about unfairness of the big corporate bullies, blah blah blah.

    And you were there, post-Trayvon America just began and it will never end.

    I send my fond greetings to those of you with whom I have made a warm intellectual connection on this blog. Good-bye.

  55. Bob, Esq.,

    “I find the desire to read race into this case almost as interesting as the case itself.”

    Yep. From day one in the national spotlight it has been a study in the effects of yellow journalism on group psychology.

  56. Marvin,

    I don’t know if you’re for real or not…. But, I think you may have something…. People don’t need pity…..l they need a helping hand and a warm reception…. But, I agree with what you have said,,,,,,

  57. Bob,

    I think you are absolutely correct…..

    Prof,

    Not all who come are capable of accepting more than their view…..l thank goodness they are not judges….. We have too many in office already……

  58. Smom,

    Yes, it is. Much like the Deen thread, the emotional charge of injecting race into a clinical examination of the law and the facts is creating an atmospheric mob mentality when personal mores are challenged by facts and/or outcomes. Both stories are an interesting study in group/social psychology. But for the victim and the defendant being of different races and an early onset of the media playing up the racial angle for ratings/readers, this would simply be another manslaughter case but for the exceptional circumstances of Zimmerman not being arrested and thoroughly investigated at the onset due to political pressures created by his father being part of the local judiciary.

  59. Swarthmore mom,

    “Kind of lining up like the Paula Deen thread.”

    *****

    I guess it has. I’d say some of us view things differently. As I wrote on an earlier thread, my life experiences have made me very sensitive to issues of discrimination and bigotry. I witnessed a lot of anti Semitism, racism, and bigotry when I began teaching in an affluent, mostly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant community in the late 1960s. I was one of their first “ethnic” teachers. I’m happy to say that the town where I taught has evolved a lot since that time.

  60. Gene,

    Yes, we women are highly emotional. It’s hard for us not to join the “mob mentality” when our lady hormones start to rage. Pity us poor females who can’t examine things clinically like you and Bob.

    P.S.
    My opinion of this case has nothing to do with media hype and coverage. Give those of us who disagree with you a little credit.

  61. Elaine,

    You need to carefully read what I wrote. The topic of race relations has an inherent emotional charge that can color clinical analysis. I didn’t say anything about women being highly emotional. I will say your straw man was very fashionably attired though if you just want me to make a sexist comment to attack. :D

  62. Besides, Mike S. was “on your side” on the Deen thread and I’m pretty sure Max would have noticed by now if he was a woman.

    Much like the Deen thread, this isn’t about sides.

    It’s about social psychology.

  63. SwM,

    lol … I was going to suggest that too but Paula Deen was fru-fru compared to Martin.

    leejcaroll wrote something the other day about how certain events cause a swirling up of public opinion … I can’t remember the quote but it was superb … I’m going to have to go on a hunt through all the threads … I should’ve bookmarked it.

    I can truthfully say that the only place I have gotten any news on the Zimmerman matter is right here. I don’t watch news on TV and I got bored with Stewart/Colbert and like minded shows so this blog gave me all I know about the Zimmerman matter. I’ve read the posts, followed the links, watched the videos … this is the sole site that informed my opinion.

  64. Elaine,

    My mother-in-law was first generation Polish and she suffered a great deal from bigotry. She was a superb teacher and filled with empathy for anyone who suffered at the hands of bigots. She bravely stood many times.

  65. As Bob Esq has restated this is about a manslaughter matter. Race had nothing to do with it…. Make it all about race all you want it still won’t change the facts of this case… A young man is dead…. You don’t like the laws… Write to the legislature and send Jeb Bush a note as well….

  66. Most certainly, but sarcasm has a point, Elaine. Sarcasm or not, the idea that sexism plays a part in noting a social dynamic fed by media coverage (as was the racism angle in the Martin case) is simply misplaced. Value loading an argument, be it by simple language choice or by deliberately injecting an ancillary and only marginally relevant (if it isn’t totally irrelevant – and I think it was to the matter at bar) topic like racism, has nothing to do with gender as a general rule (although it can depending on the subject matter). If the race angle hadn’t been played up by the media (and initially given more heat by Zimmerman’s father’s letter), the outrage at this case would have strictly been confined to Zimmerman’s initial manifestly preferential treatment and the wisdom (or lack thereof) of SYG laws. Race added nothing of substance to the legal analysis of this case and in fact created quite a bit of distraction from the real tangible issues: was the killing manslaughter and did the policy of SYG laws contribute to creating this situation. Value loading isn’t just the province of propagandists. It’s used all the time by the media in fostering sensationalism in the name of ratings/readers.

  67. Which was part of the point I was making on the Deen thread, btw. Whether or not Deen is in fact a racist is at best only tangentially related to the real issue before the bar: did she or did she not create a discriminatory work place.

  68. Gene,

    Wasn’t zimmermans dad like a retired magistrate for Virginia or some place like that…..

  69. Elaine,

    Don’t mistake taking a chance to expound as taking your joke too seriously. And much like the Deen case, I’m not saying that racism doesn’t exist and that it isn’t inherently wrong. I’m saying it really has little to do with the case proper here. It actually has far more to do with the Deen case than it really had to do with this case because the allegations are that she created a discriminatory work environment that displayed favoritism based on race. Ultimately her motive is irrelevant to whether or not she in fact created such an unlawful work environment. Just so, ultimately race has no bearing on the questions this case presented. Elitism in the form of Z’s initial preferential treatment was a far more serious social issue presented by this case than race ever was if we are going to talk social evils as was the culture of vigilante justice the Koch sponsored SYG laws engenders. Race became an issue after that preferential treatment was questioned and after the media used it to gin up ratings. It’s the sizzle. Not the steak.

  70. Are you going to call me Spock now, Elaine? :mrgreen:

    Just because some men choose not to lead with their emotions or to put them firmly in the backseat to reason doesn’t mean they don’t have them or are afraid to express them. It’s a choice. When I choose to let emotion lead, I’m usually very clear about it.

  71. AY,

    If I recall, he was a local magistrate of some sort in Florida, but it may have been a foreign jurisdiction.

  72. Robert Zimmerman, Sr. is a former Orange County Florida magistrate judge according to various Web sources.

  73. You make me sad Mr. Turley, are witnesses required to be lily white and speak the way YOU want to be valid? Yes, this is a legal blog , but I guess I was wrong about it also being concerned with justice. Have you addressed any of the post-verdict moronic comments from the murderer’s side?

  74. Bettykath stated more than once that her notifications seemed to be re-set and she did not re-set them. I am thinking that she may think her leaving was helped along by such swift disposal of her notification setting. One might also think it was a WordPress thing.

    From article: “Once again, it is unclear why Jeantel did not mention her warning of a male rape on the stand. One could almost feel the prosecutor cringing at the interview with so many questioning their judgment in relying so heavily on Jeantel.”

    I replayed a video of the Ms. Jeantel testimony regarding the ‘cracker/rapist’ remark and the video ended before the testimony did. She was interrupted with requests to repeat, talk louder, repeat, clarify, slow down, repeat, to the point that it was irritating and distracting to me. I don’t know if it was brought out in further testimony that she told Mr. Martin because the video ended with more similar requests before that testimony thread was seen to wrap up- unless it just wrapped up by going elsewhere. I have every suspicion that she thought that she did say that on the stand but was so confused on the stand that she did not.

    Also, I didn’t hear ‘racist’, I heard ‘rapist’. I didn’t have any trouble understanding her. The defense was trying to confuse her as well as impress on people that there was something wrong with the way she spoke. She was being painted as alien to the language and to the culture.

    As to her lies, she lied twice, once about her age and once about why she didn’t attend the service. Neither of those things were of substance to the case. That so many people bring up her lies when calling her a terrible witness as if she was fabricating material facts- facts material to the case, is disingenuous at best.

    The narrative as crafted is that the prosecution overcharged and that Ms. Jeantel lost the case by being a bad witness. Not true regarding Ms. Jeantel. She was consistent. She was also treated very badly. if the prosecutor did his job she was instructed to keep her answers short on cross. That and the fact that she didn’t want to be thrown into that meat-grinder to begin with and was uniformly treated as some kind of strange, alien life form by constant interruption and calls to ‘repeat’ became characterized as sullenness very early on. She knew what was up and it was obviously making her angry and frustrated. It was driving her nuts that she was being treated as if she could not speak intelligibly and it showed.

    What struck me was that the people that should have objected didn’t. I dealt with a lot of people like Ms. Jeantel and I never let them be picked at and harried like she was. I did dozens and dozens and dozens of arbitrations and hearings in various appeal forums with many witness’ and appellants that were somewhat lacking in sophistication and/or education. It was my job to insure that the weight of their testimony and their value to the hearing was as great, and respected as valuable, as any other participant including whatever big-dog flown in from HQ or called as experts got thrown at them. On a couple of occasions the arbitrator stepped in and called a halt to tactics meant to confuse and demean them. [I would give them a couple of free shots just so I could use words like ‘persistently’ and ‘repeatedly’. It made for a stronger objection and was normally met with a favorable outcome.] I was amazed at the way she was treated.

    Because it’s an itch that won’t go away: I don’t think a foreign born white guy, say a French person, with a thick accent, a nice suit and an impressive job title, would have been treated that way from the get go. There was an image being played upon, as well as crafted with Ms. Jeantel.

  75. Gene,

    You might want to consider that attaching racism to the Zimmerman case is not an exercise in emotionalism. Keep in mind that the 2005 law in Florida gives great leeway to police and prosecutors in determining the justifiability of a homicide under the SYG law and the question as to what role race plays in that decision making process and how race affects the enforcement of stand-your-ground laws is not an emotional one.

    The possibility that the self-defense doctrine, intermingled with issues of race and vigilantism is thorny but not emotional.

    “That’s what civil rights statutes are there for, when, in fact, local law enforcement fails to protect the rights of citizens, especially when race seems to be implicated, as it certainly is in this case,” says Bob Cottrol, a law professor and gun rights expert at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.”

  76. Gene,

    drop “The possibility that” and the sentence makes sense. Sorry … I edit and edit and then fail to edit ….

  77. mespo,

    Oops. My bad. Mea maxima culpa. Good to know that though.

    And my condolences.

    ______________

    Blouise,

    It doesn’t have to be, but for many it is simply because the topic of race in this country is intrinsically loaded. The first step in avoiding value loading is to be aware of the potential and compensate for it in detached clinical analysis. I haven’t seen a wealth of that in this case or much of the commentary. To me, the death of an unarmed young man doing nothing illegal and minding his own business at the hands of a vigilante is troubling regardless of the race of either victim or perpetrator. As race was attached to this case though? I think there’s a more than reasonable argument that it’s a distraction from the issue at bar, both played by the media for ratings and by Zimmerman’s own family as a distraction from the favoritism. The pending (if there is one) civil rights violation case is a different matter before the bar and race has a more substantive role in that matter than it did in the homicide charge(s).

  78. Gene,

    “I think there’s a more than reasonable argument that it’s a distraction from the issue at bar” … perhaps, until one admits that the locals never intended it to be at bar. That is the aspect of this case that I find most intriguing … what drove the initial, local, decision making process. I strongly believe that is exactly what the feds are looking at.

  79. Blouise, If that’s what the Feds are looking @ then the action would be civil rights action would be directed @ the police, not Zimmerman. I’m sure you know that.

  80. I saw a church service after the verdict. I am pretty sure the Chief of Police in Sanford is black[male].

  81. That would make it tough on the Feds. I think Holder is just preachin’ to the choir right now. I doubt any civil rights suits will be brought.

  82. Gene H.
    1, July 16, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    Are you going to call me Spock now, Elaine?

    Just because some men choose not to lead with their emotions or to put them firmly in the backseat to reason doesn’t mean they don’t have them or are afraid to express them. It’s a choice. When I choose to let emotion lead, I’m usually very clear about it.

    *****

    I made a comment about Mike. It was an observation that I had made about him. I didn’t mean it to be taken in any other way. Besides, you don’t have pointy ears and you don’t have Vulcan blood running through your veins…or do you?????

  83. nick,

    I never commented much on Zimmerman before the verdict … I just read the posts and studied the links and videos others submitted for consideration. And no, if you are referring to the chief who was in place when the initial decisions were made, he is white but it’s the “capias request” that went to the state’s attorney because the local, lead investigator wanted Zimmerman arrested for manslaughter, that starts to muddy the waters. It really is most intriguing.
    (Sonofthunder and I have our own little scenario going)

    As to Holder … what did you expect?

  84. Elaine,

    I refuse to comment on the color of my blood or the shape of my ears.

    Live long and prosper.

    __________

    Blousie,

    The Feds are indeed looking at that angle and may pursue it, but I still think in this case that it had more to do with elitism and the preferential treatment of a judge’s son than it did with race – which in itself is shameful, wrong and against the foundational principles of this country in putting the Rule of Law first. If Zimmerman had been black? I have no doubt in my mind this would have initially unfolded the same way. No man is above the law and we’ve seen a distinct rise of a political oligarchy seemingly immune from the law since Nixon. As bad as racism is, I think this kind of elitism is a far greater danger to our society and posses a greater threat to domestic tranquility. It not only displays a flagrant lack of accountability from the political class, it pisses on egalitarianism, the Rule of Law and Equal Protection.

  85. SwM,

    Up thread I mentioned a quote to you that I found most insightful and attributed said quote to leejcaroll but I have been searching all day and finally decided to try another insightful poster and bingo … found!

    “This is not the first time that i have seen the law subvert justice.

    Our society will be poorer for it, once again, as those who once put their trust in the ‘system’ will now look elsewhere . Groundswells like the ones that form almost immediately surrounding events like this are occurring more and more rapidly around the occurrance…soon they will break like a wave and the ‘law’ will be cut out of the equation altogether. What has been accomplished? No one has disproved that Trayvon Martin was stalked, accosted and (even giving GZ the benefit of the doubt…) may have in that unwitnessed moment, objected to being stalked, and accosted for being black, wearing a hoodie, having the unmitigated gall to go to the corner market without a cadre of witnesses to buy skittles and a drink. In the phucking rain.” (Woosty’s still a Cat)

  86. Gene,

    You know I’m going to agree with the elitism point you make 100% (though why anyone would consider someone from Orange County Virginia as elite beats me, no offense, mespo) and only counter with how perfectly elitism plays into and covers racism.

  87. Gene, I have not read one article written by a black person that agrees with what you just said.and I have read many over the past few days. Holder spoke today about an incident he had in Georgetown when he was already a prosecuting attorney. If one spends any time around middle or upper middle class black people one gets a totally different picture from that which you just presented.

  88. Blouise,

    That whole brotherhood in blue extends to the brotherhood in black.

    ___________

    Smom,

    So what? That only proves some people disagree with me. Not that I’m wrong. However, if you (in the generic sense of you) think there isn’t a distinct trend of elitism in the political class and LE in this country, I suggest you might not be paying attention. Distracted perhaps.

  89. Blouise,

    Also, it is no surprise that one exclusionary social ill fosters and is compatible with another.

  90. Sure there is Gene but because of white privilege many white people think they are superior to a black person even if the black person is much more accomplished.

  91. See it all the time around here, Gene, but maybe it is different in Louisiana. Somehow I doubt it. It is worse.

  92. Smom,

    I’m not sure “white privilege” applies to man of Jewish/Hispanic origin since neither are Caucasian. That being said, I am not claiming such things don’t happen. Crackers are notoriously bad about not judging people by the content of their character much less their accomplishments. I’m only saying that Zimmerman’s father wearing black probably had a whole lot more to do with the initial preferential treatment than the victim being black did. If Martin had been white, I still say I have no doubt in my mind this would have initially unfolded the same way.

  93. Gene,

    Ah, but given that hypothetical (Martin being white) would Zimmerman have considered him suspicious enough to follow and confront?

    This is a mental exercise we could engage in all night along with the inevitable semantics.

    The reality of the situation won’t change.

    BTW … the NRA and ALEC have suspended their sponsoring of SYG laws pending further developments.

  94. Blouise,

    You know as well as I do that motive is relevant in a capital murder case and then only to intent. This was never a capital murder case. It was a manslaughter case (poorly handled by the prosecution).

    And that’s good news on the NRA/Koch front.

  95. Why Did They Let Her on the Zimmerman Jury?
    The strange, strange case of juror B37.
    By Dahlia Lithwick|Posted Monday, July 15, 2013
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html

    Excerpt:
    Less than two days after a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin, juror B37, one of the six members of the anonymous panel, signed with a literary agent to shop her book about the trial.

    The news comes with a bonus video: juror B37’s entire voir dire captured on film and promoted Monday by Gawker. The process by which counsel on each side of the case interviews prospective jurors is revealing in all kinds of ways and a useful lesson in the strengths and weaknesses of the jury system. In the case of B37, it is also a master class on how to not know anything about something everyone else knows about.

    Start with the general observations already raised in Gawker: B37 consumes no media beyond the Today show—no radio, no Internet news, and no newspapers used for anything but lining her parrot’s cage. Perhaps because she does not consume any media, she was under the false belief that there were “riots” after the Martin shooting. She also described the Martin killing as “an unfortunate incident that happened.”

    But the tape raises another question that should be debated in every trial advocacy class in America: What were the lawyers, especially the prosecutors, thinking when they seated her? Why didn’t prosecutors use one of their peremptory challenges to nix her? She’s contrarian, she raised serious ontological doubts about the nature of truth-seeking, and she was only ever truly animated on the subject of rescue birds. Both lawyers were visibly cowed by her. I asked several prosecutors, former prosecutors, and public defenders to watch the video and report on the red flags it raised for them.

    Almost all of them start with the same caveat: Jury selection is not jury selection. “It’s de-selection” explains Howard Lidsky, a board-certified criminal-law attorney in Florida. “It’s impossible to make a judgment about jury selection unless you’re seated in the room,” he says. “You have 18 people in the box and just six strikes. You may dislike a juror, but you might like the person sitting next to him even less.” Ken White is a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney at Brown White and Newhouse in Los Angeles. He blogs at Popehat.com. He makes the same point: “Even if one prospective juror seems bad, you have a limited number of peremptories, and they may have judged the others as even worse. What was the alternative?”

    Robert Weisberg teaches criminal law at Stanford Law School, and he immediately wonders what it meant when juror B37 asserted that “You never get all the information. How do you form an opinion if you don’t have all the information?” Weisberg sums up his lawyerly concerns in one sentence: “She thinks the world is one big reasonable doubt.”

    Gail Brashers-Krug, a former federal prosecutor and law professor, is currently a criminal defense attorney in Iowa. She also jumped back when B37 said, ”You never get all the information.“ “That’s exactly what a defense attorney loves to hear,” says Brashers-Krug. “That’s reasonable doubt, right there. If I were a prosecutor, that would make me extremely nervous about her.” She adds that B37’s devotion to animals might raise flags for her as well. “The animal thing is weird. She doesn’t know how many animals she has, and she mentions her animals far, far more than her two daughters. She strikes me as eccentric and unpredictable. I never, ever want eccentric, unpredictable people on a jury.”

    Brashers-Krug has another reservation about seating B37: “She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. She is also taking pains to avoid saying anything particularly sympathetic to either side. Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.”

  96. Gene,

    But if Zimmerman didn’t consider him suspicious … no following …. no murder … no case at bar … all in the hypothetical of course.

  97. Elaine,

    Juror B37 wanted fame …

    Is demum miser est, cuius nobilitas miserias nobilitat. (Unhappy is he whose fame makes his misfortunes famous.) – Lucius Accius, Telephus

  98. Blouise,

    What if Zimmerman had been hit by a truck and killed the day before?

    Regression is useful in analysis only so far, but infinite regression presents the same problems all infinities do.

  99. And speaking of regression, I hear a pillow calling me to regress into unconsciousness.

    Good night, Blouise.

  100. Gene,

    The hypotheticals originated with you as a justification for elitism -v- racism. I simply suggested that if your hypothetical Matin were white, my hypothetical Zimmerman wouldn’t have followed him racism-v-elitism.

  101. Elaine,

    You know … after reading that article … juror B37’s coming out party may just have given the Prosecution a really big problem.

  102. This blog is appropriately named as every time Prof. Turley posts about the Trayvon Martin murder I agree: the thing speaks for itself.

    For example, the reference to Piers Morgan as “a cultural anthropologist” is comical. Piers Morgan is clearly an upper crust Brit. (Hint: you can tell from his accent. Does this now make me too a ‘cultural anthropologist?’) As an upper crust Brit, he’s probably not all that familiar with the blend of English that Rachel Jeantel spoke. And to deride his line of questioning about the topic of language in the way Turley does is sad. Piers was definitely asking in a gentle and respectful tone, simply to learn something and maybe educate a few of his viewers. But for Turley it now becomes a point to mock Piers Morgan on.

    Turley is also way behind the curve on juror B37, and his analysis clearly does not go far enough. For starters, even my 20 year old college-student nephew pointed out the obvious about juror B37. How is it she got a book deal and had the idea of a book deal within 48 hours of the verdict being announced? It’s highly probable she had the idea for the book during voir dire or even before. If you watch this woman’s voir dire, she’s EAGER to get on the jury. She talks in very neutral ways that are unbelievable for most people. She even volunteers information about her husband, that he’s ready to take care of her animals and her 2 daughters so there will be no worries if she’s sequestered for a long period of time. She also points out her job will pay her for the time off so there will be no financial burden. Her answers were nondescript to the point of being ridiculous. The guess of many is that as soon as she and her husband learned that she was being questioned to be a potential juror for the Trayvon Martin case that she and her husband had dollar signs in their eyes from the get go.

    Read more here. There’s also a link inside to her voir dire: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html

    Also worth noting is that B37’s husband is a lawyer in the Sanford community. Does he know the defense team? Does he know Frank Taaffe, Zimmerman’s naighbor and friend and media whore? Is B37’s husband connected with the people in this case other than his wife who sat on the jury? How is it Frank Taaffe knew that it was 5 to 1 in negotiations at one point? Was B37 leaking information to her husband who in turn leaked it to the defense team? Is anyone else surprised by the way George Zimmerman DIDN’T react when he was announced as not guilty? he was facing 30 years in jail and he just looked blankly after the announcement. Did he know before the announcement?

  103. This blog is appropriately named as every time Prof. Turley posts about the Trayvon Martin murder I agree: the thing speaks for itself.

    For example, the reference to Piers Morgan as “a cultural anthropologist” is comical. Piers Morgan is clearly an upper crust Brit. (Hint: you can tell from his accent. Does this now make me too a ‘cultural anthropologist?’) As an upper crust Brit, he’s probably not all that familiar with the blend of English that Rachel Jeantel spoke. And to deride his line of questioning about the topic of language in the way Turley does is sad. Piers was definitely asking in a gentle and respectful tone, simply to learn something and maybe educate a few of his viewers. But for Turley it now becomes a point to mock Piers Morgan on.

    Turley is also way behind the curve on juror B37, and his analysis clearly does not go far enough. For starters, even my 20 year old college-student nephew pointed out the obvious about juror B37. How is it she got a book deal and had the idea of a book deal within 48 hours of the verdict being announced? It’s highly probable she had the idea for the book during voir dire or even before. If you watch this woman’s voir dire, she’s EAGER to get on the jury. She talks in very neutral ways that are unbelievable for most people. She even volunteers information about her husband, that he’s ready to take care of her animals and her 2 daughters so there will be no worries if she’s sequestered for a long period of time. She also points out her job will pay her for the time off so there will be no financial burden. Her answers were nondescript to the point of being ridiculous. The guess of many is that as soon as she and her husband learned that she was being questioned to be a potential juror for the Trayvon Martin case that she and her husband had dollar signs in their eyes from the get go.

    Read more here. There’s also a link inside to her voir dire: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html

    Also worth noting is that B37’s husband is a lawyer in the Sanford community. Does he know the defense team? Does he know Frank Taaffe, Zimmerman’s naighbor and friend and media whore? Is B37’s husband connected with the people in this case other than his wife who sat on the jury? How is it Frank Taaffe knew that it was 5 to 1 in negotiations at one point? Was B37 leaking information to her husband who in turn leaked it to the defense team? Is anyone else surprised by the way George Zimmerman DIDN’T react when he was announced as not guilty? he was facing 30 years in jail and he just looked blankly after the announcement. Did he know before the announcement?

  104. This commentary from Martin Bashir is reminiscent of the some of the opinions presented on this blog. Some of which, unfortunately, they’ve decided to call it quits.

  105. Gene,

    You’re a white male….. How could you understand…. That’s what I’m hearing…. You’re elistst because you’re a white male…..

    Zimmerman may or may not have gotten off because of race….. But, it sound like you’re being baited…..

  106. Op-ed from an African American journalist:

    Vigilantes’ license to kill
    By Derrick Z. Jackson
    Globe Columnist
    July 17, 2013
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/07/16/zimmerman-verdict-exonerates-vigilantes/IrOA3TI7DBD3CIoh98glZI/story.html

    Excerpt:
    THE EXONERATION of George Zimmerman cemented America as the land of the free and the home of the paranoid. Vigilantism was not merely vetted by a six-woman jury in Sanford, Fla. It was lifted to an exalted status where the overzealous can put themselves above the police with fatal consequences — and no consequence.

    What should never be forgotten is the fateful dialogue when Zimmerman, the untrained volunteer neighborhood watchman, called 911 and got out of his car to trail a person he thought was “up to no good or on drugs” in his gated community on the rainy night of Feb. 26, 2012.

    “Are you following him?” the dispatcher asked Zimmerman, after telling him that police were on the way.

    “Yeah,” Zimmerman responded.

    “OK, we don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher said.

    The rest is tragic history, ending in Zimmerman shooting to death 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who possessed only a bag of Skittles candy and iced tea. What is particularly haunting is that one of the jurors who set Zimmerman free told CNN that Zimmerman’s zealotry lit the powder keg of confrontation.

    “He went above and beyond what he really should have done,” the juror said Monday. “. . . I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.”

    No matter, the jury focused only on the actual confrontation, and Zimmerman became the most stark symbol yet of a United States where gun possession is nine-tenths of the law, since the dead can bear no witness. It was the perfect storm of stereotypes colliding into the most insane gun laws in the developed world. Zimmerman, a light-skinned man of Hispanic background, got a nearly all-white jury, and his defense team convinced it to look past his initial bad judgment and obvious racial profiling that night. Before the trial, local police and state prosecutors botched the case. Florida’s “stand your ground” self-defense laws, which give gun owners great leeway to use lethal force against threats, delayed Zimmerman’s arrest and the gathering of evidence.

    Zimmerman so believed in his story that he said in an interview that the events of Feb. 26 were “God’s plan.”

    Surely God did not plan this for the United States. How many more perfect storms do we want to invite, with guns striking like lightning in school massacres and in the daily murders in big cities?…

    The greatest irony was that in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict, law enforcement and the media were on the watch for violence from black communities.

    The daily violence continues in all communities. It’s fueled by paranoia, and the new feeling of entitlement among gun owners, who seem to have stretched the meaning of “stand your ground” into “stalk your prey.”

    There will be another George Zimmerman. The only question is when.

  107. Tiger Woods barred from the British Open because of what:

    Tiger Woods won’t be playing at the British Open. Muirfield, the club hosting this year’s event, has barred blacks from membership throughout its history, and this year extended the honor to players.

    It remains to been seen whether this tiniest of protests will grow as the world’s oldest major golf tournament gets underway this week at a club that discriminates against blacks. One would think with a black man in the White House, Woods’ compadres on the U.S. PGA tour would be speaking up. So far, nary a peep.

    (Tiger Woods Barred From British Open; U.S. Players Stay Silent). I suppose lots of folks, from the reasoning expressed in comments on this and other threads, will say it is not racism because the other Americans are not speaking out against it.

    “What racism, we just don’t let blacks in.”

  108. John Kane:

    Interesting post.

    But if I were Zimmerman’s lawyers, I would have told him to be emotionless when the verdict was read.

  109. Blouise,

    Let me put it this way: I really doubt that Martin might not have been attacked if he was white because the salient psychology here is Zimmerman being a vigilante cop wannabe. Martin being young, alone and out at night I think would have been sufficient to set Z off. The guy was (and probably still is) an “accident waiting to happen”. Batman is only a hero in comic books. In real life, he’d simply be another dangerous psychopathic psychotic driven by revenge fantasies to take the law into his own hands. Sound familiar?

  110. Gene H. 1, July 17, 2013 at 11:11 am

    Blouise,

    Let me put it this way: I really doubt that Martin might not have been attacked if he was white because the salient psychology here is Zimmerman being a vigilante cop wannabe.

    *****

    Haven’t we seen Black men and teens profiled and stopped–and in NYC frisked–by real cops? I’m sure you’ve heard of DWB–Driving While Black.

    *****

    Driving While Black: Racial Profiling On Our Nation’s Highways
    http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways

    Excerpt:
    DRUG TRAFFICKERS ARE NOT “MOSTLY MINORITIES”

    Racial profiling is based on the premise that most drug offenses are committed by minorities. The premise is factually untrue, but it has nonetheless become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because police look for drugs primarily among African Americans and Latinos, they find a disproportionate number of them with contraband. Therefore, more minorities are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, thus reinforcing the perception that drug trafficking is primarily a minority activity. This perception creates the profile that results in more stops of minority drivers. At the same time, white drivers receive far less police attention, many of the drug dealers and possessors among them go unapprehended, and the perception that whites commit fewer drug offenses than minorities is perpetuated. And so the cycle continues.

    This vicious cycle carries with it profound personal and societal costs. It is both symptomatic and symbolic of larger problems at the intersection of race and the criminal justice system. It results in the persecution of innocent people based on their skin color. It has a corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the entire justice system. It deters people of color from cooperating with the police in criminal investigations. And in the courtroom, it causes jurors of all races and ethnicities to doubt the testimony of police officers when they serve as witnesses, making criminal cases more difficult to win.

    *****

    White People Stopped By New York Police Are More Likely To Have Guns Or Drugs Than Minorities
    By Aviva Shen on May 22, 2013
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/

    Excerpt:
    During the just-concluded trial on the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program, the city argued that officers’ disproportionate targeting of black and Latino New Yorkers was not due to racial profiling but because each stopped individual was doing something suspicious at the time. The data, however, tells a different story: weapons and drugs were more often found on white New Yorkers during stops than on minorities, according to the Public Advocate’s analysis of the NYPD’s 2012 statistics.

    White New Yorkers make up a small minority of stop-and-frisks, which were 84 percent black and Latino residents. Despite this much higher number of minorities deemed suspicious by police, the likelihood that stopping an African American would find a weapon was half the likelihood of finding one on a white person.

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

  111. Systemic racism practiced by actual cops is a different social, legal and psychological problem than Z presents, Elaine. He was a lone, non-state actor.

  112. Gene,

    You described him as a wannabe cop. I showed how some real cops profile Blacks. A lone, non-state actor can be a racist and act on his biases and perceptions/mis-perceptions of people.

  113. And I never said he couldn’t be a racist, Elaine.

    I said his initial preferential treatment had more to do with political connections and that such elitism was a danger to society.

  114. Yeah, but I did. You don’t get to change my postulate when it’s simply convenient and not get called on it. Despite being handicapped by being both a male and white, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, focus or ability to analyze. Agreement is not required, but straw men are not good form.

  115. my emails have been reinstated.

    I read the comments, I couldn’t help it.

    Last points,

    My analysis and comments are logically based, not emotionally based. My intuition tends to pick up on things but I then do the analysis to figure out why.

    A lot of where I’m coming from:

    There are many people with privilege don’t recognize that privilege. Those with privilege assume entitlement, but they don’t recognize that their sense of entitlement is undeserved. That privilege and sense of entitlement may be based on their being white, or male, or financial well off, or socially/politically well connected.

    I tend to have a fair amount of tolerance until it can no longer be denied that unwarranted privilege and entitlement are the forces at play. I then become quite intolerant of those who so assume it.

    ———————-

    I’m not sure which is the godfather of the other’s child, but that’s the relationship between Zimmerman Sr and Wolfinger, military buddies for many years.

    ——————

    Do nuts fall far from the tree? From Robert Zimmerman’s book:

    Zimmerman on the Congressional Black Caucus:

    “[A] pathetic, self-serving group of racists… advancing their purely racist agenda.” He later adds that “all members of Congress should be ashamed of the Congressional Black Caucus, as should be their constituents.” And finally: “They are truly a disgrace to all Americans.”

    Zimmerman on the NAACP:

    “[S]imply promotes racism and hatred for their own, primarily finical [sic], interests” and “without prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would simply cease to exist.”

    [that latter is actually a true statement. w/o prejudice and racial divide, the NAACP would cease to exist. unfortunately, there is a lot of prejudice and racial divide. bk]

    Zimmerman on NAACP President Benjamin Jealous:

    “[W]hat I would expect of a racist.”

    Zimmerman on Trayvon Martin’s funeral director:

    A “racial activist and former head of the local NAACP.”

    Zimmerman on Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson and Darly Parks, attorneys for Travyon Martin’s family:

    “The scheme team.”

  116. Gene,

    What has preferential treatment and political connections got to do with what I said? I wasn’t attempting to do what you have accused me of doing. I was confused by your response to my comment. What is my straw man?

    I thought that you had said earlier on this thread that you believed that race didn’t factor into this case. (Did I get that wrong? If so, please correct me.) I have to wonder how anyone can be sure that race was not a factor if Zimmerman could, in fact, be a racist. If Zimmerman is a racist…then racism could have factored into his actions that night.

  117. Dredd,

    You have to read the whole article to find out that only women are barred….. Which is still an atrocity…..

  118. Gene,

    By your own definition Zimmerman is a wannabe. By your own hypothetical Martin is white. You then invite us to accept your hypothetical that the wannabe would have followed and confronted the white guy.

    When confronted with some actual statistics and facts that whites make up a small minority of stop-and-frisks which are 84% non-white and that the cops contend this disparity is not due to racial profiling but because each stopped individual was doing something suspicious at the time (similar to what the non-hypothetical wannabe claimed), your response is … perhaps, but my wannabe isn’t part of the systemic racism practised by actual cops.

    It’s your hypothetical to adjust as you see fit and it is within that framework that the Paula Deen thread becomes relative.

  119. Elaine,

    Saying race doesn’t factor into the this case from a legal perspective and saying Z is definitively racist in his motivation are not the same thing and as I pointed out to Blouise, motive only factors into homicide charges in deciding if the charge should be capital murder or in the 2nd degree. The straw man comes in with this statement – “A lone, non-state actor can be a racist and act on his biases and perceptions/mis-perceptions of people.” – when I never said Z wasn’t racist. You are refuting a point I never made. That makes it a straw man, even if inadvertently so (which I will fully accept as stipulation, not all fallacies – and especially straw men – are intentional). My point was very narrow and to the actions around Z’s initial preferential treatment being as salient (if not more so) than any matter of race. Race will factor in to any forthcoming DOJ civil rights violation(s) case, but to the homicide charge unless it is shown to be motive for charging with capital murder, it is irrelevant to a homicide charge of any other degree. Only capital murder has a mens rea component. All other homicide charges rest on actus reus. For example, true motive need not be known to prove depraved indifference manslaughter (2nd degree under Florida laws) as depraved indifference can be proven by the facts of the action independent of knowing actual motive. The same goes for the lesser charge of negligent homicides such as vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The intoxication is considered prime facie evidence of negligence, no evidence of mens rea is required. That’s the primary dividing line in how murder is charged in this country: intent (motive) and planning versus every other situation merits the maximum charge and penalty (which may include death).

  120. Blouise,

    “You then invite us to accept your hypothetical that the wannabe would have followed and confronted the white guy.”

    Given the vigilante psyche, that is not unreasonable and goes to the point that initial preferential treatment was not based on the race of the victim, but rather on the connections of the perp’s father. Elitism, not racism. That is far more troubling to my eye than any racial component played up in this case (none of which was relevant as Z wasn’t charged with capital murder) as it was elitism – not racism – that almost got Z a walk on all charges.

  121. Really, Elaine? Because it sounds to me like you are since you are discussing a homicide case in Florida and the context of intent as it relates to motive.

  122. Gene,

    As you know, I’m not a lawyer. I’m not an expert on the law. I express my opinion as I see fit…and not according to some guidelines set down by someone else for me.

  123. And they, like everyone’s opinion in this forum, are subject to scrutiny. If such scrutiny offends, the offense is yours to take, but it indicates to me the marketplace of ideas is functioning as it is supposed to if someone is offended.

    There are no guidelines other than those laid out by our host.

  124. Gene,

    Reasonable or unreasonable isn’t the point … it isn’t real … it’s your hypothetical.

    Martin’s race is inconvenient to the stance that only elitism was at play here so the hypothetical was introduced to remove the inconvenience. But once statistics were offered to suggest that Zimmerman would have acted differently were Martin white, those statistics become, like Martin’s actual race, inconvenient.

    Next you’ll be telling us that your hypothetical would be more easily understood by us if we were trained logicians.

  125. Straw man, Blouise.

    I never used the word “only”.

    And I don’t expect someone without training to exhibit the same degree of logical skill as someone with training. If that presents a problem, it’s not my problem.

  126. Gene,

    I wasn’t suggesting that my comments should not be subject to scrutiny. You’re inferring something from my comment that I never implied.

  127. Gene,

    And yet another adjustment to refine the hypothetical: “that is not unreasonable and goes to the point that initial preferential treatment was not based on the race of the victim, but rather on the connections of the perp’s father. Elitism, not racism.”

  128. Elaine,

    Sure … that way when I’m asked to think like an idiot, I’ll know how to do it.

    (Oh man, I’m going to get in trouble for that one!!)

  129. Blouise,

    You’ll have to hold the fort while I’m gone. I hear my granddaughter awaking from her nap. Do try not to be too illogical while I’m away.

  130. Elaine,

    Thanks … but I don’t want to be charged with elitism … I’ll have to take it on my own though I would appreciate it if you were present to count the lashes as I tend not to trust The Man.

  131. Explanation is not the same thing as refinement.

    If you two want to take umbrage because of the logic issue again, that’s your problem. I’m pretty direct when I want to be critical and I have not criticized your logic other then when you deployed it poorly – in this thread specifically by offering up straw men.

    If that offends either of you, I really don’t care.

    I say that in the nicest way possible.

    And since the Deen thread and criticism of logic was brought up, apparently the notion of argument in parallel is still escaping you both. If you feel like your confirmation biases aren’t being catered to because the possibility that elitism was a greater problem presented to the actual case than race was, then that’s just an indication of the efficacy of what I’m saying.

    Or would you care to try to prove that racism played a larger part in the Z’s initial preferential treatment than elitism?

    Noooooo.

    That might actually require that you rethink that racism is always the primary problem of injustice in a situation simply because the victim and perp were of diverse race.

  132. Elaine,

    Mine just arrived for an overnight as both parents will be traveling on business … we’ll reconvene at a later time.

  133. Gene,

    You love us …you know you do.

    I’m going to leave you with this quote for consideration … there’s something going on out there beyond yellow journalism and media mania and any hypotheticals we may concoct:

    “Groundswells like the ones that form almost immediately surrounding events like this are occurring more and more rapidly around the occurrance…soon they will break like a wave and the ‘law’ will be cut out of the equation altogether.” (Woosty)

    I’ll see you tomorrow.

  134. “You love us …you know you do.”

    Well . . . duh. That’s without question. You’re both two of my favorite people even when we disagree.

    And as usual with W=^..^~, that observation is not without merit. The increase of manifest injustices of all sorts are going to lead to eventual social upheaval – possibly even violent – against the government. That’s been my primary caution all along about a two-tiered legal system where oligarchs and their minions are exempted from the Rule of Law. It’s just good sociology, social psychology and mathematics based on observing history. 99 > 1.

  135. for all of you who are accused of being logically challenged may I recommend the following, it is only $10 bucks and it is based on Aristotelian logic. I have listened to a couple of the lectures and they are pretty good. Also a book by H. Joseph is very good as well.

    https://estore.aynrand.org/p/90/introduction-to-logic-mp3-download

    this is not about Objectivism it is strictly a course on logic.

    http://archive.org/details/introductiontolo00jose

    the link to the book is above and I think you can download that for free.

  136. Bron,

    Not all who post here are lost or logically challenged…. Some just have no degree of civility…..regardless if they are right or wrong…. Not can they admit when they are incorrect…..

  137. Otteray,

    Everyone is right…but some are righter than others?????

    BTW, weather around these parts is oppressive today. How is the weather in your neck of the woods?

  138. Elaine:

    I have been accused of the same and am taking steps to correct my shortcoming.

    Since I am not an expert in logic, I dont know if you are or are not. But those items should help.

    The Joseph work is good stuff and rigerous.

  139. Bron,

    Expert in logic? Who me???? Nah! I do, however, consider myself to be well experienced in the high art of common sensery. It’s not something that I learned from a book or in school.

  140. Speaking of books on logic, I cannot recommend highly enough the following:

    “An Elementary Approach to Thinking Under Uncertainity” by Ruth Beyth-Marom, Shlomith Dekel, Ruth Gombo and Moshe Shaked.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0898593794

    It was originally developed as a training guide for Mossad field agents, but I came across it as one of the texts for my Logic & Legal Reasoning course. The best ways to triage logic when dealing with incomplete information I’ve ever seen. I have the book on my desk to this day.

  141. Zimmerman juror who is ‘praying for Trayvon’s parents’ claims she never had a book deal and says she wants her ‘normal life’ back
    – One of the six jurors, identified only as B37, spoke out about the verdict
    – ‘I wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses…you can’t charge him with anything because he didn’t do anything unlawful’ she said
    – Comes after her book deal was cancelled following social media outrage
    – Four of the five other jurors put out a statement requesting privacy and distancing themselves from B37’s version of events

    By Meghan Keneally
    17 July 2013
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2367349/Zimmerman-juror-B37-claims-book-deal-happened-says-wants-normal-life-back.html

    Excerpt:
    The outspoken juror from George Zimmerman’s murder trial who tried to get a book deal out of her experience says she wants her ‘normal life’ back.

    ‘No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured,’ the juror, known only as Juror B37, said in a statement to CNN. ‘My prayers are with Travon’s parents for their loss, as they have always been. I now wish for me and my family to recover from being selected for this jury and return to a normal life.’

    Public outrage ensued as news emerged this week that Juror B37 was considering a book deal based on her trial experience. An interview that she gave to Anderson Cooper also caused a stir.

    She addressed the deal in her statement, saying, ‘As for the alleged “book deal,” there is not one at this time.

    ‘There was an agreement with a literary agent to explore the concept of a book which discussed the impact of sequestration on my perceptions of this serious case, while being compared to the perceptions of an attorney who was closely following the trial from outside the “bubble,”‘ she added. ‘The relationship with the agent ceased the moment I realized what had been occurring in the world during the weeks of my sequestration.’

    Juror B37 made the statements after four other jurors released a statement distancing themselves from her.

  142. Elaine,
    Regarding WX, I just had to run an errand and it is HOT. Almost three digits but not quite. Also humid at 92%. Randyjet will know what I am talking about when I say we have one heck of a lifting index at the moment, because the late afternoon cumulonimbus is building. Part of the sky is dark purplish grey.

  143. That’s logical based upon your rudeness…. Civil… Based upon what you can understand…l

  144. Elaine:

    She lost her book deal? Oh my.

    Trying to make a buck off of a dead child. WTF is wrong with people?

  145. Lets see you admit you were wrong about where zimmermann dad was a magistrate….. You fool…. Still can’t….can you?

  146. John Henry Spooner Shooting VIDEO: Evidence Shows Darius Simmons Killed (GRAPHIC)
    Posted: 07/17/2013
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/john-henry-spooner-video-darius-simmons_n_3612378.html

    A video entered as evidence in the murder trial of John Henry Spooner on Tuesday appears to show the 76-year-old shooting his 13-year-old neighbor Darius Simmons dead.

    The Milwaukee senior is charged with first-degree homicide after the alleged incident in May last year. Jurors saw the video (below), taken from Spooner’s own surveillance camera, that shows the suspect walk out of his house, brandishing a gun. After a short argument, the man in the video waves the gun around before he shoots Simmons in the chest. Simmons manages to flee outside the scope of the camera before dying.

    The evidence was recorded in court Tuesday and provided to HuffPost Crime by the Journal-Sentinel.

    Simmons’ mother, Patricia Larry, testified in court that Spooner accused her son of burglarizing his home, stealing several weapons. She said Spooner told Simmons he’d teach him a lesson before firing the fatal shot.

    She added that her son died in her arms moments later.

    Police say Spooner admitted to the crime, and that he claimed Simmons was part of a black family next door that had caused nothing but trouble, according to the Associated Press.

    Jury selection began Monday, and potential jurors were asked about their thoughts on racial issues, as well as the recent and George Zimmerman trial, according to local news station TMJ-4.

    Jurors will need to decide whether Spooner intentionally killed Simmons, and whether Spooner was suffering from a mental illness at the time that prevented him from knowing right from wrong.

  147. AY,

    Learn to read, dumbass.

    “July 16, 2013 at 9:41 pm

    mespo,

    Oops. My bad. Mea maxima culpa. Good to know that though.

    And my condolences.”

    And if you want to talk uncivil, let’s talk about your continued sniping and generally pissy attitude about not getting your way and finding out that you really do have no say in how this blog is run. Or perhaps the incivility of lying to a nominal friend to attempt to gain advantage in a dispute with the third party.

    Either way, you mistake me for someone who gives a flying f*ck what you think of me personally. You lost that privilege all on your own. By your own hand even.

    I do hope that was clear enough for you to understand through that sugar haze running through your brain, oh ex-friend o’ mine.

  148. Bron,

    “Trying to make a buck off of a dead child. WTF is wrong with people?”

    Good question. I wonder what kind of logic she used to arrive at her conclusion about what actually happened on the night that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

  149. “I wonder what kind of logic she used to arrive at her conclusion about what actually happened on the night that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.”

    Other than “poor” and “prejudicial”? I’m sure it would paint a curious picture.

  150. Gene,

    Half a$$ed is like no admission at all…. I see your pissing off and on even your once staunchest supporters…. See how that works for ya…. No need for people with dual personalities today…. Sell your wares to someone buying….

  151. My relationship with Elaine and Blouise is just fine and none of your business. Again, see the above response, AY. It works better if you’re not reading it through the bottom of a glass.

  152. At least we know you don’t have any say on the blog…. Which must really hurt you…. Or whole bunches of folks would be banned….. Your hollow threats are like helium balloons…. Eventually they drop to the ground and wither…… Yep…. Seen it before…. Blow hard….

  153. Again, see the above response @ 4:05 pm and your continued incivility, AY.

    Buffoonery is really most unbecoming.

  154. Your continued incivility Gene is most inappropriate….. But then again, Buffoonery….. Is your finest character trait….

  155. Gene,

    You really can’t…. Just take the Meds when the cart comes around….. It’s really ok….

  156. Awwww. That’s adorable.

    Go ahead. Get it out of your system. Call me all the names you like if it makes you feel better. Again, it’s not as if I care.

    Seriously, some have learned about the rules and their value here and moved on to become very productive contributors. You should take a cue from them instead of dwelling on your failures past. It’ll make you a much happier camper.

  157. Awe Gene,

    But you’re not adorable….. You’re rude…. You have a temper tantrum when someone disagrees with you….and I’ll mannered…. You must really not be from the south…. You have no respect for anyone’s opinion….. I seriously doubt if you even respect yourself….. I hear your pain…. Learn from some of the other bloggers and learn to show some respect for other people….. You can do it….. I’m sure part of your therapy class will provide you the details….. Now take the meds….. It’s nap time for you soon…..

  158. AY taken out the trash and sweepn dem floors.

    I like it…….. I love it……….. gib’em samore of it

    COME ON BABY !!!!!!

  159. Actually, I do respect some others opinions just like I respect some other people, AY.

    Just not yours or you.

    If Elaine or Blouise have a problem with me, they are grown women capable of fully speaking for themselves. I know. I’ve seen them do it.

    Respect is earned, just as disrespect is earned.

    Respecting others right to have and express an opinion doesn’t equate to needing to agree with them or respect their conclusions. It’s pretty simple really. Disagreement is just par for the course in a marketplace of free ideas. If you want an echo chamber, I suggest you seek it someplace else.

    I’m also not a fan of bad logic, poor argumentation or insufficient evidence. And my self-respect is just fine and is entirely not based on your opinion. Thanks for your faux-concern.

    However, you are illustrating a marked refusal to follow the civility policy.

    So go ahead. Get it out of your system. At the end of the day, you’ll think you’ve hurt me or my feelings and I still won’t care what you think of me personally and neither will anyone of any importance to me.

    I’m really glad we aren’t friends anymore.

    Cutting you loose was a good decision.

  160. Gene,

    You see, I’m not to only one that thinks you are rude…. I’m just not afraid of your bullying tactics….. I’m not speaking for anyone in particular when I stated you are rude and ill mannered…. You need professional help….. Or at least that’s my opinion…. When someone disagrees with you or you disagree with someone you are not civil in the least…. Don’t you see that? Admitting your are incorrect is ok…. It shows strength and character…..with friends like you… No thanks… I’d rather be ok with myself…. You really should try something for your anger issues…. Really….. Not sure what services are available for you, but reach out…. You are not the authority on everything….but, I’m sure you think you are….. Now when the med cart comes around… Just take what the doctor has proscribed ….

  161. Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker Defends Trayvon Martin Racial Profiling As ‘Common Sense’
    The Huffington Post
    By Katherine Fung
    Posted: 07/17/2013
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/kathleen-parker-racial-profiling-washington-post_n_3612120.html?utm_hp_ref=media

    Excerpt:
    One day after Richard Cohen’s incendiary column about Trayvon Martin, the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker defended the racial profiling of Martin as “common sense.”

    Parker wrote that the incident “never should have happened,” but not before justifying George Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin, the unarmed teenager who he shot and killed.

    “The point is that this is one of those rare instances in which everyone is right within his or her own experience,” she said. “African Americans are right to perceive that Martin was followed because he was black, but it is wrong to presume that recognizing a racial characteristic is necessarily racist. It has been established that several burglaries in Zimmerman’s neighborhood primarily involved young black males.”

    Later, she continued:

    “This is not to justify what subsequently transpired between Zimmerman and Martin but to cast a dispassionate eye on reality. And no, just because a few black youths caused trouble doesn’t mean all black youths should be viewed suspiciously. This is so obvious a truth that it shouldn’t need saying and yet, if we are honest, we know that human nature includes the accumulation of evolved biases based on experience and survival. In the courtroom, it’s called profiling. In the real world, it’s called common sense.”

    The Post published the piece the day after Richard Cohen’s column, which also supported the racial profiling of Martin. The longtime columnist argued that Zimmerman was right to be suspicious of Martin because he was wearing a hoodie, which he called “a uniform we all recognize.”

  162. Inmate’s untreated, fatal stroke results in $1 million settlement by Hillsborough sheriff, jail medical provider
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/inmates-untreated-fatal-stroke-results-in-1-million-settlement-by/2130278#comments

    Excerpt:
    TAMPA — The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and the private company that provides medical care to county prisoners paid $1 million in a wrongful-death settlement this year to the children of a Tampa man who spent approximately 36 hours in jail without treatment while suffering a fatal stroke.

    Allen Daniel Hicks Sr., 51, was found stopped in his car on the side of Interstate 275 by a sheriff’s deputy and a Florida Highway Patrol trooper the morning of May 11, 2012. Passers-by had called 911 after they saw Hicks’ Chevy Cavalier swerving west into a guardrail, records of the incident show.

    Speaking incoherently and unable to move his left arm, Hicks was arrested on a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer when he did not respond to commands to exit his car. Just after noon, he was booked into the Orient Road Jail.

    Hicks did not receive a medical screening, but was put in a cell where he lay facedown on the floor or tried to crawl using the one working side of his body. On the night of May 12, soaked in his own urine, his brain choked of blood, he was at last taken to Tampa General Hospital and diagnosed with an ischemic stroke. He slipped into a coma and died within three months.

    The troubling story of Hicks, a popular baseball coach and former employee of the Hillsborough County School District, is illuminated in court records that describe jail officials’ hefty payout to his children as well as ongoing litigation against other agencies. Internal Sheriff’s Office memos and jail surveillance video largely corroborate the account in legal documents.

    The failure to provide potentially life-saving treatment for Hicks as he suffered the early stages of a stroke raises questions about the quality of medical care in Hillsborough County jails, where for years a South Florida company has held a lucrative contract to treat prisoners.

    *****

    Man arrested for having a stroke while Black, left to die on jail floor.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/15/1223852/-Man-arrested-for-having-a-stroke-while-Black-left-to-die-on-jail-floor#

    Excerpt:
    Just when I thought Florida could not possibly surprise me with anything as awful as the Trayvon Martin travesty of justice; I come across this story that left me speechless. This poor man appears to have been arrested for having a stroke while being Black. I would warn you not to watch the video if you are sensitive to triggers.

    I also wonder at the title of the article. The use of the word “inmate” to try and minimize the awfulness of what really happened? He was a man having a stroke and he was arrested and left to die on the floor of a jail cell because the officers assumed he was just a trouble maker instead of someone having a medical emergency; Not a goddamned “inmate”. Why did the arresting officers not recognize obvious stroke symptoms? Why was he arrested instead of given medical care at the scene of the accident? And in Florida? Accidents caused by medical emergencies are not that uncommon down here with the millions of retirees driving around.

  163. I hereby formally request that the entire Interwebz view this thread and so put paid to scurilous accusations that I should be considered “verbose”.

  164. Anonymously Yours 1, July 17, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    Dredd,

    You have to read the whole article to find out that only women are barred….. Which is still an atrocity…..
    ============================
    Yep.

    My comment right under the comment you evidently referred to says: “It’s a joke — only women are barred.”

    “Only” women.

  165. Gene,

    I have that book! (An Elementary Approach To Thinking Under Uncertainty) – hardback

    I had to buy it for a graduate class I was taking (Theology) but also used it with my troop of high school aged Girl Scouts during the year we studied values clarification.

    It is very dogeared, highlighted, and full of handwritten margin notes but in my main library and not relegated to the attic.

  166. Elaine,

    Kathleen Parker is one of the few conservative columnists I occasionally read. I think she’s as off base regarding Zimmerman as the rest of that crew but she was one of the first conservatives to tell Republicans that their VP candidate, Sarah Palin, was in way over her head.

  167. Blouise,

    You’re the very first person I’ve ever suggested that book to that already had it. By the condition you describe yours in, I’m going to assume you found it as interesting and valuable as I did. :D

  168. Fear and Consequences: George Zimmerman and the Protection of White Womanhood
    Jessica Valenti
    July 16, 2013
    http://www.thenation.com/blog/175299/fear-and-consequences-george-zimmerman-and-protection-white-womanhood#

    My first week of college, I had a heated debate about abortion with two new friends—both were white, and one, Nancy, was extremely pro-life. I was feeling pretty proud of myself for having such an “adult” conversation—we disagreed, but everyone was being respectful. Then my other pro-choice friend asked Nancy what she would do with a pregnancy if she was raped. I will never forget what Nancy said: “I think it would be cute to have a little black baby.” When we expressed outrage at her racism, Nancy shrugged. It never occurred to her a rapist would be anyone other than a black man. (DOJ statistics show that 80 to 90 percent of women who are raped are attacked by someone of their own race, unless they are Native women.) When this young woman imagined a criminal in her mind, he wasn’t a faceless bogeyman.

    I hadn’t thought of this exchange in years, not until I was reading the responses to George Zimmerman’s acquittal—particularly those about the role of white womanhood. When I first heard that the jurors were women, I naïvely hoped they would see this teenage boy shot dead in the street and think of their children. But they weren’t just any women; most were white women. Women who, like me, have been taught to fear men of color. And who—as a feminist named Valerie pointed out on Twitter—probably would see Zimmerman as their son sooner than they would Trayvon Martin.

    Brittney Cooper at Salon expressed the same sentiment: “I am convinced that at a strictly human level, this case came down to whether those white women could actually see Trayvon Martin as somebody’s child, or whether they saw him according to the dictates of black male criminality.”

    And indeed, Anderson Cooper’s interview with juror B37 sheds light on who was considered deserving of empathy and humanization. Hint: it wasn’t Trayvon Martin. As Igor Volsky of Think Progress pointed out, “B37” used Zimmerman’s first name in the interview frequently and twice used the phrase “George said” even though Zimmerman didn’t testify. She also indicated that she wasn’t moved by Rachel Jeantel’s testimony because of her “communication skills” and that “she was using phrases I had never heard before.”

    Perhaps most tellingly, though, “B37” told Cooper that Zimmerman’s “heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done.” (The phrase “above and beyond” is interesting, given it’s generally understood as a positive.) To her, Zimmerman was a protector. Sure, maybe he went a bit overboard but “Trayvon got mad and attacked him,” and Zimmerman “had a right to defend himself.”

    This juror’s comments cannot be divorced from our culture’s long-standing criminalizing of young black men, and white women’s related fears. As Mychal Denzel Smith pointed out here at The Nation and on MSNBC’s Up With Steve Kornacki, defense attorneys stoked this fear deliberately and broadly.

    To my disgust, O’Mara literally invoked the same justification for killing Trayvon as was used to justify lynchings. He called to the witness stand Olivia Bertalan, one of Zimmerman’s former neighbors, who told the story of her home being burglarized by two young African-American boys while she and her children feared for their lives. It was terrifying indeed, and it had absolutely no connection to the case at hand. But O’Mara presented the jury with the “perfect victim,” which Trayvon could never be: a white woman living in fear of black criminals. Zimmerman had offered to help her the night her home was robbed. Implicit in the defense’s closing argument: he was also protecting her the night he killed Trayvon Martin.

    They carefully made Martin—the victim—into that not-so-faceless bogeyman. Now, I don’t know what was in the jurors’ hearts—but the story the defense told and that juror B37 parroted is not a new one. It’s a story that ends with fear trumping empathy and humanity. (A fear that even now is being grossly defended as justified.)

  169. White supremacy, meet black rage
    How does black life come to have value in a white supremacist system, where the rules only apply to us?
    By Brittney Cooper
    (Brittney Cooper is an assistant professor of Women’s Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers University.)
    Jul 14, 2013
    http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/white_supremacy_meet_black_rage/

    Yesterday, six women in the state of Florida, five of them white, made clear that the inherent value of black life and black personhood is legally indefensible.

    The legal sanctioning of George Zimmerman’s murder of Trayvon Martin gives veracity to an argument that Chief Justice Roger B. Taney made in 1857: A black person has “no rights which a white man is bound to respect.”

    No, George Zimmerman is not white. But his assumptions about black men are rooted in the foundational assumptions of white supremacy and his treatment by the justice system have conferred upon him privileges usually reserved for white men. The malleability of white supremacy for non-black bodies says something about the singular power and threat of the black body in this kind of racialized system.

    Though much of the mainstream media who have covered this case have convinced themselves that race did not play a role in this trial, a black kid is dead because being young, black and male, and wearing a hoodie in the rain is apparently a crime punishable by death.

    When I think of the jury in this case, five of them white women, I am convinced that at a strictly human level, this case came down to whether those white women could actually see Trayvon Martin as somebody’s child, or whether they saw him according to the dictates of black male criminality.

    (I’m fairly sure that Pauli Murray, the famed African-American civil rights attorney and feminist activist who successfully dismantled the all white, all-male jury system in the case of White v. Crook (1966), a decision that made an all-female jury possible, is somewhere turning over in her grave.)

    Now that we have a verdict, it is clear that they didn’t see a young man who could be their own child, because white women’s sons aren’t stalked, profiled and deemed unworthy of being in middle-class neighborhoods. But young black male criminals are exactly the kind of people who plague the white imagination and spur white flight, gated communities and heavy policing.

    Some will say that I shouldn’t pick on the jurors. They were only working with the evidence they were given. I say there’s enough blame to go around. Certainly the prosecution didn’t do Trayvon any favors.

    All these things considered, the verdict is frankly pretty predictable. So, too, then is black rage.

    Unabashed, unchecked white supremacy will always lead to unabashed, unchecked black rage. Call it the laws of physics.

    My rage is made all the more sure by those who are “encouraging” black people not to “riot.” They urge us to follow and respect the rule of law.

    Because, of course, it is black people who need to be reminded of the rules.

    Even though it is we who peacefully assembled by the thousands all over the country and marched in order to turn the wheels of due process. And it is we who waited patiently for 15 months for this case to be brought to trial. And it is we who have yet again been played for fools as we waited fervently for justice to be done.

    On the other hand, George Zimmerman deputized himself, sought a confrontation and then became judge, jury and executioner for a kid who committed no crimes.

    To ask black people to respect the rule of law is an exercise in missing the point, not to mention an insult.

    Almost immediately upon hearing the verdict, I was reminded of Ida B. Wells, who penned these words in an 1892 pamphlet titled “Southern Horrors” several months after three of her friends were lynched with impunity in Memphis:

    The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great [a] risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life.

    Though her calls for armed and vigorous self-defense strike a chord with me in this moment when I’m not feeling particularly pacifistic, I am more intrigued by the intrinsic question at the heart of her statement.

    How does black life come to have value in a white supremacist system, if not through the use of violence?

    Rather than preaching to black people about not rioting, these are the kinds of questions we should be asking and answering. What alternatives are there when the system fails? It should be clear by now, that despite centuries of being disappointed by the system, African-Americans believe in the value and potential of this democracy more than even white people do. We shed our lives for it; sacrifice our dignity to it; and internalize our anger in the face of it.

    Still we are spat upon and mocked, our children and loved ones killed, our anger swiftly policed and contained.

    I wish I had answers to soothe my worries, optimism to soothe my rage.

    I do know a change had better come. Because as James Baldwin said in the epigraph to one of my favorite collections of his essays, “God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water. The fire next time.”

  170. Now that, Elaine, is a good argument for racism in the verdict.

    If you’ll re-read what I was saying, it was about elitism in the initial preferential treatment of Z, not about the verdict. No one is denying systemic racism is neither real nor a problem. It’s just not the only problem. As I mentioned to Blouise, it is no surprise that two exclusionary social problems – elitism and racism – can (and do) feed one another. At their heart, they are both anti-egalitarian ideals.

  171. “To ask black people to respect the rule of law is an exercise in missing the point, not to mention an insult.” (Brittney Cooper)

    Yes, Yes, and (b)YES(/b)

    Many years ago I was down south marching in Dr. King’s non-violent manner. I had taken all the workshops and training in non-violent protesting and was marching arm in arm with friends when a fat, sweating, newly deputized resident approached us with a bat. My training deserted me and I punched him in the nose drawing blood. He was stunned and didn’t continue moving towards me so I ran like he!! to the middle of the pack and was hidden by fellow marchers. The Man never found me but I was in a heck of a lot of trouble anyway because I had violated all the tenants of non-violent protesting. The leaders were not at all pleased and I was sent to more workshops and seminars … lovingly, of course.

    Gotta be honest … it really pisses me off when people tell African Americans to remain calm, don’t “riot”, follow and respect the rule of law … makes me want to punch somebody in the nose.

  172. Trayvon Martin’s Parents ‘Devastated’ by Not Guilty Verdict
    By KATIE KINDELAN
    Good Morning America
    http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-parents-devastated-not-guilty-verdict-105928189–abc-news-topstories.html?vp=1

    Excerpt;
    The parents of Trayvon Martin felt “shock” and “disgust” when a Florida jury ruled Saturday night that George Zimmerman, 29, was found not guilty in the shooting death of their son.

    “I really didn’t believe that he was not guilty,” Sybrina Fulton said today on “Good Morning America.” “My first thought was shock, disgust.”

    Zimmerman had been accused of second-degree murder for shooting Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, Fla. He said from the beginning that he had shot Martin in self-defense, but many questioned his account of the incident.

    “I think people are forgetting that Trayvon was a teenager so he probably thought as a teenager,” Fulton said. “I really do believe he was afraid because he did call George Zimmerman creepy. So he was afraid and if you are 17 years old and you are afraid, you may not know what to do.”

    The verdict from the all-female jury of six was met with a wave of public outcry, including protest marches across the country.

    “As parents understanding how they reached the verdict, I’ll never grasp that concept,” said Martin’s father, Tracy Martin. “Just as loving parents and God-fearing people, we just continue to pray that whatever was in their heart was what they intended to do. But we didn’t feel it was fair and, of course, it was devastating.”

  173. And just when you thought Ted Nugent couldn’t say something dumber . . .

    Ted Nugent: George Zimmerman Should Sue Trayvon Martin’s Parents For Emotional Suffering

    I’m all for free speech, Ted, but just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should say something. You aren’t paid because you’re a genius. You’re paid because you’re a guitar player. Maybe you should stick to the guitar playing and leave the thinking to us adults who know how to play our instrument – the human brain. I say this as a (former) fan and guitarist. Seriously, after years of hearing your insane ridiculous pronouncements I’m finally forced to say STFU. And I say that in the nicest way possible. Have a nice day.

  174. Zimmerman Trial Juror b37 Reconfirms Glaring Juror Racial Bias
    By earl ofari hutchinson
    OpEdNews Op Eds 7/17/2013
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zimmerman-Trial-Juror-b37-by-earl-ofari-hutchin-130717-245.html

    Excerpt:
    George Zimmerman trial juror b37 flatly said that there was no doubt that Zimmerman feared for his life when he killed Trayvon Martin. When she said that, she reconfirmed two deep and troubling facts about the Zimmerman trial and the criminal justice system. One is that she and the other white jurors bought the contention Zimmerman’s defense attorneys and legions of his backers ruthlessly and relentlessly drove home. That is that Martin was the assailant and Zimmerman the victim. The even more troubling fact is that she reconfirmed again the glaring racial bias that deeply plagues the jury and criminal justice system when a black is both the victim as was Martin, and in a perverse leap of logic by Zimmerman defenders, the defendant as was Martin.

    The Zimmerman trial jury was with one exception all-white. The one juror that was the exception was a non-African-American. That jury reflected the terrible reality that when a black is the defendant or perceived as Martin was as the defendant in a trial with an all-white or a jury with no blacks on it and the victim is non-black or the defendant is white they are far more likely to convict a black defendant than a white one. Florida is one of the worst offenders when it comes to routinely convicting black defendants and acquitting white defendants

    One month after Martin was slain by Zimmerman in March 2012, Duke University researchers examined records of more than 700 non capital felony cases in the state from 2000 to 2010. They found what has long been known and that’s that the race of a defendant and victim play a huge role in how a jury is likely to decide a case. Black defendants by a double digit margin were more likely to be convicted than a white defendant. A major reason for this was that a significant percentage of the jury pools had no blacks on them. The study found that when juries had even one black on it white and black defendants were convicted at the same rate. The researchers drew one inescapable conclusion and that’s that all-white juries are not only more prone to convict black defendants but that despite court rulings that bar exclusion of jurors or potential jurors because of race, a major number of juror pools and thus juries continue to be all-white.

    This amounts to a not so subtle form of jury nullification of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury. The centerpiece of that is the concept of a jury of a defendant’s peers. All-white juries hardly meet that constitutional standard.

    The Zimmerman trial jury was certainly no aberration. It was consistent with the findings that juries in Florida as in many other states are likely not to have any African-Americans seated on them, and that when the defendants are African-American they are routinely convicted. Juror b37’s frank admission that she and the other white jurors thought Zimmerman was under assault, feared for his life, and thus had the right to use deadly force to defend himself was horribly consistent with the findings that juries are much more likely to find whites or non-blacks that beat, maim or kill blacks to be within their rights to defend and or likely to acquit them of charges. This was obviously true in how Zimmerman was depicted as the victim, not Martin, in the minds of the white jurors.

    The juror bias study was also consistent with another study that found that whites that claim they kill or maim a black under the stand your ground law are far more likely to either not be charged with a crime or if charged to be tried on lessor charges. Or they are more likely to be acquitted than a black that claims they maimed or killed a white under the law.

  175. Trayvon Martin Family Attorney: ‘The Biggest Mistake Was To Ignore Race’
    By Judd Legum
    Jul 18, 2013
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/18/2319681/trayvon-martin-family-attorney-the-biggest-mistake-was-to-ignore-race/

    Excerpt;
    In a press conference immediately after George Zimmerman was acquitted, State Attorney Angela Corey declared “this case has never been about race.”

    The legal team for the Trayvon Martin family disagrees. In an interview with ThinkProgress, Natalie Jackson — one of three lawyers representing Trayvon Martin’s parents — said the prosecution’s “biggest mistake was to ignore race.”

    Jackson emphasized that she thought Corey and her deputies were skilled, passionate about the case and pursued the strategy they thought would work best. But Jackson also believes that the state’s decision to ignore the role race played in the case was a major strategic error and may have allowed Zimmerman to escape a guilty verdict.

    By deliberately avoiding any discussion of race, Jackson said, the state made “everyone feel comfortable and when everyone feels comfortable bad things happen.”

    Throughout the trial, the defense subtly leveraged racial issues to their advantage, according to Jackson. She said a picture of Martin that defense attorneys frequently showed the jury, where he is shirtless, was designed to play into “stereotypical fears people think white women have of black men.” Jackson would have objected to its use.

    Jackson would have also objected to the testimony of Olivia Bertalan, who testified that Zimmerman helped her after two black men in their late teens broke into her home in August 2011. She later related her experience to Zimmerman. Jackson believed the purpose of Bertalan’s testimony was to “group black boys” and “would have done everything possible to strike her.”

  176. No!
    Stop with the racist female jury cr*p!
    It’s nonsense, isn’t it?

    If I am to believe B37 in her interview, 3 of the 6 considered Zimmerman guilty of at least manslaughter.
    B37 was one of the 3 who came away with ‘not guilty’ (of anything).

    B37 admits that she thought Zimmerman should not have gotten out of the truck. She thinks he should not have done what he did.
    Presumably the 3 non ‘not guilty’ jurors thought the same. That’s 4 (at the very least) who considered that Zimmerman should not have gotten out of the truck, etc.

    B37 asked if she would be hapy for Zimmerman to be NW in her community said ‘yes – but on the assumption that he had learnt his lesson and would not act that way in future.
    See? She thinks he scr*wed up but he’s now reformed. He would not do that again.

    Ooh! Cut to Hannity Interview

    HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?
    ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
    HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that the time has passed a little bit?
    ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

    “Houston37, we’ve had a problem.”
    .

    I’ve seen people assert that the biggest mistake made by the prosecution was to put all of Zimmerman’s various statements and interviews into vidence. The theory is that zero view of Zimmerman’s story this would have forced the defence to put Zimmerman on the stand – and therefore reveal himself as a White/Hispanic DeeDee in terms of credibility.
    This ignores the mistake of getting a buffoon to prove an unprovable M2 by trying to use shouting as evidence.
    .

    As I understand things, the biggest mistake (even bigger than the M2/buffoon mistake) was to let the defence get the “initial aggressor” instruction removed.
    “Following is not aggression” – but was it not something a lot more complex than simple following behind someone in the case?

    “Vote with your hearts” my arse!

    What got the 3 ‘minimum manslaughter’ jurors to change?
    My bet is in the particular set of jury instructions that they ended up with.

    If they could not consider what led up to the fight, then they were left with a fight with some mysteries. Presumption of innocence. Reasonable doubt. Not Guilty. Thank you and good night!
    .

    Can any of the real lawyers her comment on the actual relevance of the “initial aggressor” instruction here?

  177. Joy,

    You can let it rest…if you like.

    *****

    Rachel Jeantel and Juror B37: 2 women, 2 tales, 1 trial
    Opinion
    by Adam Serwer, MSNBC | July 18, 2013
    http://thegrio.com/2013/07/18/rachel-jeantel-and-juror-b37-2-women-2-tales-1-trial/

    Excerpt:
    Rachel Jeantel’s face lit up when describing how she and Trayvon Martin would sometimes talk on the phone all day. “He was a calm, chill, loving person. Loved his family, definitely his mother,” Jeantel said on CNN. “And a good friend.”

    Poised and confident, the 19-year-old Jeantel came off differently than she did anxiously testifying before a Florida court about the last moments of Martin’s life. In a post-trial interview, a juror said bluntly that on the stand, Jeantel ”wasn’t credible.”

    “I think she felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills. I just felt sadness for her,” the white, female juror told Anderson Cooper in an interview earlier this week. While Jeantel spoke at length about Martin, the juror–who has insisted on remaining anonymous—was clearly moved by another person, George Zimmerman. Zimmerman shot and killed the 17-year-old and unarmed Martin in February, 2012. He said he acted in self-defense after he was attacked by Martin. A jury acquitted him of committing a crime.

    “I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly, that he went above and beyond what he really should have done,” said the Juror, identified only as Juror B37.

    Listening to the back-to-back interviews which aired Monday, it is hard to believe these two women—different backgrounds, different ages—were in the same courtroom.

    Jeantel knew the victim like only a best friend could. The juror was a stranger to Martin who sat in judgment and anonymity. But she left the trial believing she understood and could relate to the defendant. “Do you feel like you know him?” Cooper asked. “I do,” juror B37 responded. Then: “I feel like I know everybody.”

    Jeantel told CNN’s Piers Morgan she was “angry” Zimmerman had been acquitted. Juror B37 was forgiving. “I think he just didn’t know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.”

    The divide between these two women, their perceptions of the case and the two men involved, reflect the same gulf on display nationally in the aftermath of Zimmerman’s acquittal. If America is having a “conversation” about race, it’s happening in different rooms. The vast majority of black Americans are certain race played a role in Martin’s death. Another poll shows that a majority of white Americans believe it did not.

    Juror B37 told Cooper that she thought race had nothing to do with it. ”I mean, just because he was black and George was Spanish or Puerto Rican, I don’t think it had anything to do with this trial, but I think people are looking for things to make race play a part in this trial.” Zimmerman’s father is white and his mother is Hispanic, Zimmerman himself has identified as Hispanic.

    Jeantel told Morgan on the same network later that night that race had everything to do with it. “It was racial. Let’s be honest. Racial,” Jeantel said. “If Trayvon was white and he had a hoodie on, would that happen?”

  178. Now!
    LISTEN UP!
    This is funny.
    Alternatively it will be very frightening for any defendant – or for any lawyer, be they defence or prosecution.

    B37 on Jeantel (in part):

    “I think she felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills. I just felt sadness for her,” the white, female juror told Anderson Cooper

    Yes. It is unfortunate. Well that’s how those people are, how they live and stuff. Bad communication skills.

    It is fortunate for society that well educated people such as BDLR and B37 have excellent communication skills. They can not only present themselves clearly, but they can also understand fully what another educated person is saying. Justice will be served thanks to good communication skills.

    Cooper asks B37 about Jeantel’s credibility.
    She says :

    Most important thing was the time that she was on the phone with Trayvon. So you basically hopefully if she heard anything she would say she did……

    Yes indeed. One would basically hopfully hopefully …eh…that.
    But… let’s stop there for a moment and look at what the prosecution and defence knew about the possibilities of “the time that she was on the phone with Trayvon”

    The NEN ended at 7:13:40
    The Martin/Jeantel call dropped at 7:15:43 ( On MOM’s 10-ft-wide timeline even)
    Lauer’s 911 call *was picked up* at 7:16:11
    The Event Report for the 911 call shows that the system detected the incoming call at 17:16:00 and that the dispatcher picked it up at 7:16:11

    Work it back.
    Lauer had completed dialling and the call started ringing at 7:16:00
    Before that a number of things had to happen.
    She had to notice the noise – mute her TV – listen – decide that a 911 was appropriate – get to the phone – dial.
    There was a delay in there – a problem with phones. She thinks maybe 30 seconds. This sounds reasonable – particularly considering the delay.
    The fight was noticed by her about 7:15:30. It might have started a bit earlier. She had to become aware of the noises above the TV.

    It seems clear that Jeantel could have heard the leadup and beginning.
    Fight starts very close to 7:15:30
    Martin/Jeantel call drops at 7:15:43
    There is a strong probability that Jeantel would have overheard the beginning of the fight – as she says she did.

    Back to B37

    Most important thing was the time that she was on the phone with Trayvon. So you basically hopefully if she heard anything she would say she did but the time coincides with George’s statements and testimony of time limits and what had happened during that time.
    AC: Explain that
    Well because George was on the 911 call, while she was on the call with Trayvon and the times coincide and I think there was 2 minutes between when George hanged up from his 911 call to the time when Trayvon and Rachel had hung up.
    So really nothing could have happened because the 911 call would have heard the non emergency call that George had called ..heard something happening before that.

    This woman feels sadness for Jeantel because she thinks Jeantel felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills.
    This woman …on a high-profile TV interview with Anderson Cooper, just said “… but the time coincides with George’s statements and testimony of time limits and what had happened during that time.
    Well because George was on the 911 call, while she was on the call with Trayvon and the times coincide and I think there was 2 minutes between when George hanged up from his 911 call to the time when Trayvon and Rachel had hung up.
    So really nothing could have happened because the 911 call would have heard the non emergency call that George had called ..heard something happening before that.”
    Luckily for herself, her family, friends, children, grandchildren, etc…her face was blanked out.

    The prosecution might have clearly explained the timings involved with the calls. It was absolutely vital to aid Jeantel’s credibility that they did so very, very, very clearly.
    Shock horror!! One can not depend on the jury to work such things out for themselves.
    .

    Incidentally, B37 can not remember much about the opening statements. Why even bother making them?

  179. I could be mistaken, but I believe that most gated communities in Florida strictly prohibit gay rapists.

Comments are closed.